ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
SWR
Well, it sounds like I was on the right track, anyway...Hah! It converted the one with LOTS OF CAPS. (BTW, I put LOTS OF CAPS in CAPS on this post).
Yep.Does this mean the thread got deleted? Or the post?
If this is the previous poster's message, that you have quoted in order to put it in your post,
and, if this bolded response is your response and is typed inside the quote,
then if you don't add anything before or after the quote you will get that message.
That's odd. Is it happening often? Do you have text in the reply editor when this happens?
Must be a new feature of Internet Explorer 8.
Larry
If you quote a previous message, and then type your response inside that quotation, it will result in that message. For example,
Don't ask me how I know... The software assumes that you have added nothing original since there is nothing before or after the quote.
Hi Janet,
I've had it happen in 2 different posts just using quick reply. The latest one was the SS gap poll and I did have text in the box.
It failed several times before I shut down the forum session and then opened it back up and posted here.
After I posted here I went back to the SS gap thread and was able to post a reply. I was just wondering if anyone else had that problem.
Must be a new feature of Internet Explorer 8.
Larry
I then pressed quote and the quoted text was longerAh, but most Christians are atheists--concerning the Hindu gods, the Homeric gods, and the hundreds of other gods of human theology. So, except for a few deists, Unitarians, and a few others with nonspecific and unexclusive views of what this supernatural entity might be, almost everyone is an atheist (with regard to most of tyhe proposed gods). As the atheist allegedly said to his Chrstian friend: "We're both atheists regarding hundreds of gods. I just reject one more than you do." __________________Originally Posted by FIREdreamer
I do believe that atheists perform an act of faith by rejecting the existence of God because, objectively, the non-existence of God is as unproven as His existence (unless I missed something). The agnostic decides to remain open to both possibilities. To the question "Does God Exist?", theists will answer "yes", atheists "no" and agnostics "maybe". That's how I see things but I am no philosopher...
Ah, but most Christians are atheists--concerning the Hindu gods, the Homeric gods, and the hundreds of other gods of human theology. So, except for a few deists, Unitarians, and a few others with nonspecific and unexclusive views of what this supernatural entity might be, almost everyone is an atheist (with regard to most of the proposed gods). As the atheist allegedly said to his Chrstian friend: "We're both atheists regarding hundreds of gods. I just reject one more than you do."
I agree with FUEGO's approach. Many rationalists use the shorthand label "atheist" in common discussion, but would choose "agnostic" if engaged in a rigorous discussion that dealt with degree of observable evidence. For what it is worth, I think most atheists have given this subject (the existence of god) at least as much careful, critical thought as the average religious person has given it.
BTW, there's a good deal of debate among nonbelievers in how best to "come out of the closet" in a Christian/religious-dominated culture. Some favor a confrontational "we're not going to be quiet anymore, get your theology out of government, religion is killing hundreds of throusands of people every year" stance. Another faction sees this as counterproductive and instead want to emphasize that fact that lack of religious faith does not result in amorality and that atheists have made/continue to make many positive contributions to society. I'm in the second camp, but there are times (e.g. religiously-motivated mass killings) that should make everyone consider the impact of various beliefs--and the impact to society of giving people a pass for disregarding reason in favor of texts they believe to be the revealed word of a diety. Once we accept supernatural communication as a valid means of choosing an action, I don't know how we get to rule on which supernatural communications are valid and which are invalid.
Looks like Samclem edited the post to add the other paragraphs. You probably hit the quote button while he was doing this.In this thread I read post 103. It was
I then pressed quote and the quoted text was longer
Why didn't I see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the original post?