Pfft... You don’t know anything about my secret question. I didn’t want to ask you the secret question anyway.
I know everything about your secret question. Jesus told me all about it while he was taking his shirt off and gyrating. (He said that there's no market for hand-made carpentry anymore.
What I find amusing is that you didn’t bother to say you merely asked questions about someone else's statement. Why not just say this from the start?
Were you unable to glean this from the fact that I had quoted someone else's statement and asked two questions starting with, "So you're . . . ?"
Also, I was illustrating a point. Namely, that an answer is only as good as the question asked, and at least in my experience on forums theists are not asked very good questions. Quite often, I see them asked questions based on an assumption made from their posts rather than what the person is actually saying, and often on this forum that's immediately followed by several posts creating a side conversation about the person's straw man position before they ever get a chance to respond.
As I said earlier in the thread:
I've found that when I do give a simple, direct answers, atheists tend to not accept them because they're not the answers they were looking for, and they keep asking more convoluted questions to get the answer they want until the answers become convoluted as well.
Regardless, I have far too often seen internet atheists insist on buying the fake and selling what's real in discussions with Christians (I've even had atheists tell me that if I'm a Christian I must necessarily be a Young Earth Creationist, despite YECs being a minority of Christians.)
What better way to illustrate this than to give direct answers to the questions actually asked of me? After all, it should not be my responsibility to make sure you have read the text you're quoting. And that's not just me who feels this way: MTO in particular gets very upset when she feels people are not making an effort to respond to her posts.
However, I digress. My point is that a direct answer is not always a good answer, and a good answer is not always a direct answer. Often when my answers are not direct it's because I am spending my time hedging against a hasty assumption that the other person has made or appears likely to make, which often results in them making said assumption anyways.
In short, communication is a two way street. I highly disagree with this thread's attempts to set atheists up as the arbitrators of discussion, and then sitting back and insisting theists are unable to measure up. My objections so far have generally been met with, "Well you're usually ok, Mooby," which entirely misses the point. So I opted to give in and provide accurate answers to the questions asked, without wasting any time hedging or explaining or any other standard tactic that makes my answers less than direct. I didn't respond with, "Yes but that's not my view," or "Yes and no, you see it's really like this..." or any other dirty theist tactic. I simply answered the questions asked of me, to the minimal degree required to answer them, with the most straightforward response I knew to give.
And it earned me a healthy smite and your annoyance. See what happens when you try to fulfill an OP?
Would there be any significant difference between Mooby saying "I reject that answer as it does not fit my experience", and Anfauglir saying "I reject Moobys answer as it does not fit with MY experience"?
If you love two equally, how do you decide which to love forever and which to torture or kill?
Do you just flip a coin?
And why put so many in torture of death and so few in heaven to be loved?
Would you mind terribly if I abstained from answering your questions until after you have answered mine?