Moral laws of the Bible

[Jstwebbrowsing]

That would be strange considering Dawkins never said Jesus didn't exist, plus has written articles about Jesus as if there was a historical figure associated with a Jesus.

Well I am not saying whether he did or not.  I will take your word for it.  However, two questions arise.  Why was he so reluctant to admit it?  Why were those in this thread so reluctant to admit it?  You ask for evidence but then you reject anything that may be evidence.  Who is being dishonest by denying there is evidence for Jesus' existence?

I strongly doubt your ability to interpret anything intellectually speaking, judging by your horrendous level of poor discourse and dishonesty on this forum.

And I strongly doubt your ability to learn, judging from your horrendous level of self-righteousness and pride.

Can you explain why dawkins would write about an existent historical figure years prior to this debate?

No.  Nor can I explain his reluctance to admit this fact if what you say is true.

Too bad you didn't use the rest of the debate. Lennox ranted through most of it and contradicted himself constantly.

If your only argument is that a professor of mathematics, science, and religion from Oxford did nothing but rant then you don't bring much to the table.

The captions are cute though. Wrong, but cute.

I wouldn't agree the captions were entirely wrong.  I also don't think they are cute because they went beyond simply providing information. I don't think it is cute to disrespect someone that is deserving of some respect.  This is much like you did above by saying the other Oxford professor mostly ranted.

Actually they do. They demonstrate quite a bit.

Then where is the evidence that a tree that falls in the woods makes a noise if no one is around to hear it or record it?  In this case there is something we know occurs but no evidence can be provided to prove it.  This is more similar to the question a Christian must face.

Sound is simply a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure which is then transmitted a medium of solid, liquid, or gas. When the tree falls it sends out pressure waves proceed to travel through the air. We know it will do this because we know about the functions of gravity. We also know from other practical experiences that the sound waves will be of a sufficient frequency to be heard by a human ear, if there was a human present.

Your telling me how it could happen and why it would happen.  And I can tell you how and why God would exist.  But you're not providing any evidence that it does in fact happen if no one is around to hear it.  In the same way I can't provide evidence for God because we are not where he is.

Every historian accepts it? Tell us Jane - is every historian a Christian? They must surely be if every historian accepts the historical documentary evidence of Jeebus.

From what I've been able to gather it seems to be accepted fact.  I mean even our calender is divided into A.D.  and B.C.  Heres is some more evidence.  And rather than asking if every historian accepts this maybe it would be better ask what the majority of historians think?  Do you have evidence that his existence is still in debate?

Here is a debate worthy of consideration I think.  Both seem to have good arguments.  Although it is never asserted there is no evidence for Jesus.






Theists may be interested in this.

[Asmoday]

Yes, they are primary source documents and you can deny it, hold your breath until you turn blue and go out into the backyard and eat worms. It won't make the slightest difference. The scholarly world will continue to engage with those documents as it has for the last 2000 years.

Who said that historians accept the supernatural elements? Who? Do you really not get that the New Testament documents quite thoroughly a particular moment in human history? Do you really not get that it describes the birth of Christianity? Or is Christianity a myth, too?

No, not every historian is a Christian. Not every New Testament scholar is either. What they all have in common is their ability to recognize historical source documents, primary sources, when they see them.

And round and round we go.

Jane, several pages back it had been said to you that it is not in doubt that the Christian myth might be grounded on an actual itinerant rabbi (or more than one) but that the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible is unsupported by evidence. You denied that vehemently and said that, apparently, all of us are just lacking in knowledge of historic research to claim this because the scientific world of historians and scholars would not doubt a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.

Now here you go and say that not all historians (and not even all scholars) accept a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.

What is it, Jane? Please take note of the "divine" and the "as described in the bible" I stress so much. Either the evidence for a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible is there or it is not there. If it was there and it was, as you told us more than once by now, as obvious as the light of day to anyone with even a speck of knowledge in historical or scholarly methodology and science, then why exactly are there these historians and scholars that do doubt the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible?

You say Jesus' "life is just about the best attested of any figure in the ancient world" yet historians and scholars themselves don't seem to know that as the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible is far far away from being as accepted as you claim it is.

If it was as strong a piece of evidence as you claim it is for historians and scholars, why does the acceptance of the supposed evidence for Jesus existence hinge on the historian or NT scholar being a Christian (per your own words)?


Which brings me right to the next point:

Yes, they [the gospels] are primary source documents

Again, a few pages back you argued that the gospels are primary sources for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible (and I suppose you still do).

As I and others have said repeatedly back then, we do not see the gospels as primary sources giving evidence for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible. To add to that, we did not just say it, the reasoning for this was shown, too (repeatedly).
Once again, you contested that.[1]

Now you come around again with your argument that the gospels are primary sources, so I think it's actually time to bring some meat to the table.

Back then you yourself quoted what the university of Yale had to say about what a primary source is [quoted as you wrote it in your own post):

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

So, to settle matters and since a large number of members have already brought forth their arguments why the gospels do not qualify as primary sources, I think it's about time you do the same.

I would ask you to take the above definition of what a primary source is and apply it to the gospels. That should not be a big task in any kind of way.

To clear things up for this discussion you should state:

- for what exactly the gospels are supposed to be a primary source (like for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible, for the existence of people holding such beliefs, for the existence of diverging Jewish cults at that time, etc.)

- in what way they are first hand testimony or direct evidence from witnesses present at the events (that again depends on what your answer was to the point above)

1.	Well, 'contested' isn't quite right because you just said we were wrong, you were right and you could not be arsed to show why.

[Alzael]

I don't think it is cute to disrespect someone that is deserving of some respect.

He wasn't deserving of any respect. His argument that he tried to use against Dawkins was basically that Dawkins was doing science wrong by following the scientific method. There is nothing to respect about that. He's a decent mathematician, but he's otherwise dishonest.

If your only argument is that a professor of mathematics, science, and religion from Oxford did nothing but rant then you don't bring much to the table.

What else did you want me to call it?

Dawkins started out by probing him with a few simple questions. Lennox went on and on asserting that the things in the bible literally happened and that all of the bible accounts represent historically viable evidence. Despite this assertion he immediately started to waffle as soon as Genesis was brought up. He claimed that it wasn't literally 24 four hour days but that the account was still compatible with scientific findings about the origins of life. He also trotted out a claim that he made in a prior debate about how since Genesis describes a beginning, instead of a universe of infinite existence, it actually got the physics right.

Or in other words, he ranted and was contrdictory throughout.

Then where is the evidence that a tree that falls in the woods makes a noise if no one is around to hear it or record it?  In this case there is something we know occurs but no evidence can be provided to prove it.

I gave you the evidence. You just obviously ignored it.

Your telling me how it could happen and why it would happen.  And I can tell you how and why God would exist.  But you're not providing any evidence that it does in fact happen if no one is around to hear it.  In the same way I can't provide evidence for God because we are not where he is.

No. I told you how basic physics works. We know exactly how these forces occur and interact with each other. We know that when something moves through the air it creates waves of pressure. These waves of pressure are what we call sound. We know that they happen. Even if no one is there, the air still exists, so does the tree that is falling. Gravity still exists as well. So the waves of pressure are still created. You don't have to be present to have evidence that something happened.

All you have for your god is a bunch of stuff that even you can't describe and some claims that are made by every religious person who thinks differently than you.

Your equivocation is wrong, and very sad.

Now how about providing that evidence? Or responding to the actual questions you keep getting asked? Or saying something meaningful at least.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Jane, several pages back it had been said to you that it is not in doubt that the Christian myth might be grounded on an actual itinerant rabbi (or more than one) but that the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible is unsupported by evidence. You denied that vehemently and said that, apparently, all of us are just lacking in knowledge of historic research to claim this because the scientific world of historians and scholars would not doubt a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.

You have misunderstood what I have written and written several times. I am talking about the historical Jesus. Not his claims of divinity. The claim that the Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist is not disputed by any historian, but for a handful of fringe types. What they do not all accept is the claim that he is God.

I honestly don't know how to express this any more clearly than I already have.  As to primary sources, you even quoted the Yale definition which should have cleared it up for you:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

He claimed that it wasn't literally 24 four hour days but that the account was still compatible with scientific findings about the origins of life.

This is not waffling.  It is a statement that is easily supported with the Bible.  You just choose not to accept it.  How is the order of the appearance of life the same from science and the Bible?  Did the writer of Genesis just make a lucky guess?

He also trotted out a claim that he made in a prior debate about how since Genesis describes a beginning, instead of a universe of infinite existence, it actually got the physics right.

I did not listen to the entire thing but science and the Bible are in agreement that the universe had a beginning.  This discovery only confirms what the Bible already said.  This is evidence that the Bible is true and not the other way around.

Or in other words, he ranted and was contrdictory throughout.

So no, you have not proved this.

I told you how basic physics works. We know exactly how these forces occur and interact with each other.

And I can tell you how God works.

We know that when something moves through the air it creates waves of pressure. These waves of pressure are what we call sound. We know that they happen.

We know that when something moves through the air it creates waves of pressure. These waves of pressure are what we call sound. We know that they happen

We also know that "effect" is followed by a "cause".  So this universe must have had a cause and that cause must be greater than nothing.

Even if no one is there, the air still exists, so does the tree that is falling. Gravity still exists as well. So the waves of pressure are still created. You don't have to be present to have evidence that something happened.

I don't believe you.  You cannot prove this to be true.  You have "faith", based on your knowledge of physics that it occurs and you expect me to accept your faith.  But I simply cannot accept your faith.  I need something concrete.  I need evidence and you don't have any.

All you have for your god is a bunch of stuff that even you can't describe and some claims that are made by every religious person who thinks differently than you.

No.  The entire universe is evidence of God.  This is why there is something instead of nothing. 

If no God exists then tell me why there is something instead of nothing?  How did "something" get here?  Did something come from nothing?  Or did something create itself out of nothing?  This is not logical.

Now how about providing that evidence?

Done

[Hatter23]

]

We also know that "effect" is followed by a "cause".  So this universe must have had a cause and that cause must be greater than nothing.

[

If every effect must have a cause, what is the cause of God?, and barring that, why is the universe and "effect" and not the primary cause?

[Asmoday]

You have misunderstood what I have written and written several times. I am talking about the historical Jesus. Not his claims of divinity.

I have said "historical divine Jesus as described in the bible" the whole time I have been talking to you. That is not the same as the historical Jesus. You have been arguing for the Jesus as described in the bible. Which is not the same as the historical Jesus.

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, Jane.

The claim that the Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist is not disputed by any historian, but for a handful of fringe types. What they do not all accept is the claim that he is God.

Doesn't surprise me that you say that, even when it's not true.

The research that claims to confirm the existence of the Jesus of the gospel is disputed by more than just "fringe types."

There are more historical and scholarly opinions on what kind of Jesus existed than just "Jesus as described in the bible" and "He did not exist at all."

I honestly don't know how to express this any more clearly than I already have.  As to primary sources, you even quoted the Yale definition which should have cleared it up for you:

It's not surprising you fail at even answering two simple questions if they would have pinned you down without wiggle room. Instead you just quote the definition again.

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

Which part of the gospels are autobiographies or memoirs, Jane? Especially since the authors of the gospels are unknown, the gospels themselves have no connection to the apostles they are named after and most of the gospels have been written 30 (only in the earliest datings) to 100 years after what supposedly happened? How can they be, if three of them are known to be largely more compilations and copies of other writings than of original information?

Regarding oral histories, you do realize that oral histories recorded later (as much as 100 years later) do not count as primal source for the events described therein but just as primal source that such beliefs were held?


Once again:

To clear things up for this discussion you should state:

- for what exactly the gospels are supposed to be a primary source (like for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible, for the existence of people holding such beliefs, for the existence of diverging Jewish cults at that time, etc.)

- in what way they are first hand testimony or direct evidence from witnesses present at the events (that again depends on what your answer was to the point above)


How hard can it be for a knowledgeable person like yourself to do this?
You seem to have enough time to log on again and again to post snarky up to insulting commentary yet every time you are asked to actually specify your own arguments and show evidence for your claims, you either can't seem to find the time or you forget how to operate your keyboard which keeps you from posting all your magnificent knowledge that you claim to possess.
There's a trend starting to show.

[Hatter23]

You have misunderstood what I have written and written several times. I am talking about the historical Jesus. Not his claims of divinity.

I have said "historical divine Jesus as described in the bible" the whole time I have been talking to you. That is not the same as the historical Jesus. You have been arguing for the Jesus as described in the bible. Which is not the same as the historical Jesus.

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, Jane.

After all, if said Bible is primary evidence, as Jane States, why persue the possiblity that there was just a guy named Jesus. Ok, and so what if there was a personage that shared a name with Divine Bible Jesus?

[nogodsforme]

Jane, several pages back it had been said to you that it is not in doubt that the Christian myth might be grounded on an actual itinerant rabbi (or more than one) but that the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible is unsupported by evidence. You denied that vehemently and said that, apparently, all of us are just lacking in knowledge of historic research to claim this because the scientific world of historians and scholars would not doubt a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.

You have misunderstood what I have written and written several times. I am talking about the historical Jesus. Not his claims of divinity. The claim that the Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist is not disputed by any historian, but for a handful of fringe types. What they do not all accept is the claim that he is God.

I honestly don't know how to express this any more clearly than I already have.  As to primary sources, you even quoted the Yale definition which should have cleared it up for you:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

If you can't document that the magical stuff in the bible happened, you have no basis for your religion, chickie. Or at least no reason to adhere to one over any of the others who can't document their magic either. You may as well throw a dark at a shelf of religious books and believe whichever one the dart hits. 'Cause in each case you are just following a story told by some guy about some other guy.

Now, I must have missed it, but which parts of the bible are autobiographies? which are memoirs? which are oral histories? And what would you call a third person account of something the person could not have been a witness to? (Hint: a story.)

[Maggie the Opinionated]

The research that claims to confirm the existence of the Jesus of the gospel is disputed by more than just "fringe types."

No it is not. Even Bart Ehrman, himself an atheist, thinks that dismissing the historical Jesus is insane. So does most everyone.

[the rest of the same old same old deleted.]

[Maggie the Opinionated]

If you can't document that the magical stuff in the bible happened, you have no basis for your religion, chickie. Or at least no reason to adhere to one over any of the others who can't document their magic either. You may as well throw a dark at a shelf of religious books and believe whichever one the dart hits. 'Cause in each case you are just following a story told by some guy about some other guy.

Is addressing me as chickie an example of the respect you claim you show everyone?

[Asmoday]

No it is not. Even Bart Ehrman, himself an atheist, thinks that dismissing the historical Jesus is insane. So does most everyone.

[the rest of the same old same old deleted.]

Historical Jesus =/= Jesus of the gospel


So, Jane, no clarifications to the details of what makes the gospels a primary source? One would think you could do that easily, if you had a point.

[Ivellios]

If you can't document that the magical stuff in the bible happened, you have no basis for your religion, chickie. Or at least no reason to adhere to one over any of the others who can't document their magic either. You may as well throw a dark at a shelf of religious books and believe whichever one the dart hits. 'Cause in each case you are just following a story told by some guy about some other guy.

Is addressing me as chickie an example of the respect you claim you show everyone?

Regardless of the disrespect you consider being called "chickie," to dismiss the rest of the post, is admission that she's correct for the rest?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Is addressing me as chickie an example of the respect you claim you show everyone?

You should note that they do not claim to show you respect.  So it should be no surprise if they don't.

It kind of makes me wonder what the world would be like if it was full of athiests that can't even show a little respect to someone because they are different.  They point fingers at religion but I don't see them showing they are any better.  This makes me think that religios is not to blame.  Humans are.

[One Above All]

Jstwebbrowsing, how about you put your money where your mouth is and check her posting history? In fact, check every theist's posts and you'll see why you get treated with "disrespect".

[Alzael]

It kind of makes me wonder what the world would be like if it was full of athiests that can't even show a little respect to someone because they are different. 

Being different has nothing to do with it.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Jstwebbrowsing, how about you put your money where your mouth is and check her posting history? In fact, check every theist's posts and you'll see why you get treated with "disrespect".

EVERY theist?  Maybe you should do something a little different to attact a higher grade of theist then.

[One Above All]

EVERY theist?  Maybe you should do something a little different to attact a higher grade of theist then.

I guess I did exaggerate a bit when I said "every theist".
But check the ones you think we're being rude to.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

But check the ones you think we're being rude to.

It seems to me you are rude to any of them that make a mistake, do not know something, or are in error.  I do not think these merit rudeness.  And I'm not saying that this applies to every rude remark.  Some may be merited.

However, in an environment of rudeness you are not going to attract many knowledgable theists.

[Alzael]

This is Jst's typical defense for everything. It can't be because we find his behaviour or Janes behaviour objectionable/detestable. It can't be them. It's because the atheists are just mean.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Even the name "Lucifer" is going to be perceived as disrespectful to a theist.  And it surely is the intent.

[Timtheskeptic]

Is addressing me as chickie an example of the respect you claim you show everyone?

You should note that they do not claim to show you respect.  So it should be no surprise if they don't.

It kind of makes me wonder what the world would be like if it was full of athiests that can't even show a little respect to someone because they are different.  They point fingers at religion but I don't see them showing they are any better.  This makes me think that religios is not to blame.  Humans are.

oh please. Look up Sweden, they're not rude or anything. Also, look at what Jane's been posting. She was just so blind and ignorant.

[One Above All]

It seems to me you are rude to any of them that make a mistake, do not know something, or are in error.

Wrong.

Before I explain why you're wrong, let me just say that I don't agree that what most people think of as "rude" is, in fact, rude.

Now then, imagine that a random person walked up to you and started asking you about how a space shuttle works. You happen to be the guy in charge of designing the space shuttles, so you know exactly how they work. The guy says you're wrong and exhibits clear signs that he doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
You try to be "nice" and explain why space shuttles aren't magical, but the guy just keeps on pushing his BS onto you, despite having no knowledge of anything even closely related to space shuttles. You get pissed, right? Now imagine that you have to deal with this every single day. People walk up to you and spread the same BS that you've heard every single day since you got a job as a space shuttle designer. It wouldn't take much to get you pissed.

I do not think these merit rudeness.

True. Simple lack of knowledge is not enough to warrant "rudeness". However, willful ignorance, close-mindedness, bigotry and a complete disregard for intellectual honesty (like making statements about subjects you know you know nothing about) are.

However, in an environment of rudeness you are not going to attract many knowledgable theists.

Ever heard of an oxymoron?

Even the name "Lucifer" is going to be perceived as disrespectful to a theist.  And it surely is the intent.

Don't care and no it's not. Lucifer is a title given to an angel (random angel; not Satan), a king (where the whole "Lucifer=Satan" error started) and Jesus. It means "Lightbringer". Lucem Ferre.
EDIT: I feel the need to add that if I were to attempt to explain what its intent is, you wouldn't be able to understand it. I'm not calling you an idiot; it's just that you'd need to be me in order to think like me. Your post above (especially the "surely" part) indicates that even if I tried to put it in terms you could understand, it would still go over your head. One of the few reasons you can understand is that I'm trying to change all of my screen names to the same.

[Ivellios]

Incorrect jst. I've seen a few theists go from being on the offensive and making attacks at "angry atheists," to finally chilling and taking the time to get to know some of us. Outside of the occasional bad day, generally initial interactions with theists are considerate and respectful. When someone like Velkyn responds to Plain Jane's post, responding point-by-point PJ made, then PJ accuses Velkyn that her conversations "go all over the place[1]," "is not engaging in a discussion," or outright dismisses the post because Velkyn, "isn't worthy of a response." (a small sampling of Plain Jane's responses)

Plain Jane, ultimately is responsible for the treatment she recieves. If you treat others with respect, you get treated in kind.

1.	ironic considering Velkyn is only responding following PJ's lead

[Timtheskeptic]

Even the name "Lucifer" is going to be perceived as disrespectful to a theist.  And it surely is the intent.

oh really? Well JST, maybe you need to stop defending Jane because she was being highly disrespectful and self righteous, not to mention condescending. We're not being "rude" when we're debating theists, we question them. You want rudeness? There are religious forums that'll kick you out if you mention that you're an atheist.

[Alzael]

Even the name "Lucifer" is going to be perceived as disrespectful to a theist.  And it surely is the intent.

So in other words you're saying that we can't even use certain names without being rude.

If you're really that fragile then there's nothing we can do or say that wouldn't be rude.

And more importantly, so what? You've been rude the entire time you've spent here. Why are you allowed to be rude and we're not allowed to treat you and others accordingly?

[Graybeard]

From what I've been able to gather it [Jesus was a real person] seems to be accepted fact.  I mean even our calender is divided into A.D.  and B.C. 

Could that be because the Church was the most powerful organisation in the world and dictated what people did and thought?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#History

The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table.

The Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius Exiguus, used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. In this same history he also used another Latin term, "ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ"

However, the Hindu Kaliyuga^Wiki calendar announces this year as being Year 5113. The Kaliyuga, means the "age of [the demon] Kali", or "age of vice" and is the last of the four stages the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures.

According to you, proves beyond all doubt that Kali, goddess of Death and Destruction is ruling the earth and must therefore exist.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

It seems to me you are rude to any of them that make a mistake, do not know something, or are in error.

Wrong.

Before I explain why you're wrong, let me just say that I don't agree that what most people think of as "rude" is, in fact, rude.

Now then, imagine that a random person walked up to you and started asking you about how a space shuttle works. You happen to be the guy in charge of designing the space shuttles, so you know exactly how they work. The guy says you're wrong and exhibits clear signs that he doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
You try to be "nice" and explain why space shuttles aren't magical, but the guy just keeps on pushing his BS onto you, despite having no knowledge of anything even closely related to space shuttles. You get pissed, right? Now imagine that you have to deal with this every single day. People walk up to you and spread the same BS that you've heard every single day since you got a job as a space shuttle designer. It wouldn't take much to get you pissed.

I do not think these merit rudeness.

True. Simple lack of knowledge is not enough to warrant "rudeness". However, willful ignorance, close-mindedness, bigotry and a complete disregard for intellectual honesty (like making statements about subjects you know you know nothing about) are.

However, in an environment of rudeness you are not going to attract many knowledgable theists.

Ever heard of an oxymoron?

Even the name "Lucifer" is going to be perceived as disrespectful to a theist.  And it surely is the intent.

Don't care and no it's not. Lucifer is a title given to an angel (random angel; not Satan), a king (where the whole "Lucifer=Satan" error started) and Jesus. It means "Lightbringer". Lucem Ferre.
EDIT: I feel the need to add that if I were to attempt to explain what its intent is, you wouldn't be able to understand it. I'm not calling you an idiot; it's just that you'd need to be me in order to think like me. Your post above (especially the "surely" part) indicates that even if I tried to put it in terms you could understand, it would still go over your head. One of the few reasons you can understand is that I'm trying to change all of my screen names to the same.

Yes I know that I would get highly annoyed and I can appreciate the point.  And maybe I could not refrain from some rudeness.  But this is not a unique quality held only by theists.  Athiests do it do.  So will muslims, hindus, etc. etc.

Perhaps your intent is not to offend theists with your name.  But that most certainly will be the effect in most cases.  Now true, that may be the fault of their perception, but if you want to catch flies then you need to use some honey and not vinegar.  Well....a little BS will go a long way too haha.

Plain Jane, ultimately is responsible for the treatment she recieves. If you treat others with respect, you get treated in kind.

Yes I've seen Plain Jane make some condescending comments and such and I think you guys should be given respect too.  I have done the same myself.  I am not guilt free of this charge.

But there are times that I forget to reply to a post and sometimes I just get tired of typing all night on one post.  As soon as I do this then I'm accused of being and ignorant idiot.  The best I can tell here it's three theists and about 15-20 athiests.  You can't really expect a theist to get to every point made every time.

oh really? Well JST, maybe you need to stop defending Jane because she was being highly disrespectful and self righteous, not to mention condescending. We're not being "rude" when we're debating theists, we question them. You want rudeness? There are religious forums that'll kick you out if you mention that you're an atheist

Yes I've been to some really rude Christian forums and such.  I don't stick around very long.  I mean, I'm here instead of a Christian forum.  What does that tell you?  And least you are not telling me God is going to send me to hell.

I admit, my intent was to defend Jane, but if Jane is being the same way then maybe she'll consider what's being said too.  And I really am trying my hardest to practice what I preach, but I've made mistakes.

I dunno.  Maybe I stuck my nose in where I shouldn't have.  I just always feel the need to play peacemaker.

Oh and for future reference.  My short term memory is not what it could be so if I do not reply to something then assume I forgot.

[Ivellios]

Yes I've seen Plain Jane make some condescending comments and such and I think you guys should be given respect too.  I have done the same myself.  I am not guilt free of this charge.

But there are times that I forget to reply to a post and sometimes I just get tired of typing all night on one post.  As soon as I do this then I'm accused of being and ignorant idiot.  The best I can tell here it's three theists and about 15-20 athiests.  You can't really expect a theist to get to every point made every time.

Since this was written as a response to a post that I made, I will focus solely on the part addressed to me.

Well, I cannot speak for everyone, only myself of course. I try to treat people with respect. I have not reported anyone for dodging, stonewalling or anything else. I am fully aware that the occasional post slips thru. Sometimes a theist will respond to a post that I missed somehow myself. That being said, if someone responds to a single point in a post that I've made, and ignored the rest, they cannot claim that they overlooked/missed the post. Every post? No. However, once you hit the 'Quote' button, you have to manually delete everything you're not going to respond to. When I do a point-by-point I copy the initial [ quote author=] line. Then I put [ /quote] before I make my response to that point, and when I get back to the post I'm responding to, I paste the [ quote author=] line, then I repeat the process. Using this process, there's really no reason to not respond to every point directed at you, from within a post. It's how and why Lucifer's and my posts show the Author with time/date stamp and able to foward you to the quoted post, if you click on it. Well, I think he copy-pastes it, since I can only speak for myself. I simply find it highly probable since I find it easier.

That's the way I see it. You may accidentially overlook a post, but once you've engaged in a response to a particular post, it takes a willfull action to respond to a small portion of it, and to delete the rest.