Atheism

@timur,

In a Schrödinger's cat kind of way. Wrong but actually very very very right at the same time.

No, Olive Tree, that case is not closed. You, like Frank, are completely incapable of admitting that you may be wrong, so it's no surprise that you attempt to substantiate your claim with a passage which patently does not say what you claim it says.

I asked people what they thought of the article. I have said that i don't think the author has made his case. I've quoted the article to support that, and provided other citations to support my case. All you've done is attempt to tell a native speaker of English that a text means what it does not say. Your command of English is paltry, and your reasoning abilities are almost nonexistent.

I think the author is wrong, and that he is motivated by a respect for religion which is unsurprising given his academic career.

Case closed.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

That calls for a song:

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I think the author is wrong

Only because you misunderstand him.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I probably acknowledge being wrong more than anyone else on this forum

So by saying that you're right and I'm wrong you're showing that you hardly ever claim to be right?

No...I am saying that I probably acknowledge being wrong more than anyone else on this forum.

Jeez!

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

Frank knows better than you do, what you believe (or not) and what your thoughts are..

Some kind of extraordinary medium..

Where did I ever say that?

I guess you have to make stuff up in order to have something to say.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You have said that I'm a believer countless times.

You have been repeating that mantra for years now..

Obviously, you think you know what you are talking about..

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

No, Olive Tree, that case is not closed. You, like Frank, are completely incapable of admitting that you may be wrong, so it's no surprise that you attempt to substantiate your claim with a passage which patently does not say what you claim it says.

I will gladly show a half dozen posts where I acknowledged that I was wrong.

I doubt you could show two of yours...if in fact you have done so twice. You, in fact, are the kind of person who seems completely incapable of acknowledging being wrong...which you so often are.

But I guess you will pretend that you did not read this reply so you don't have to show that you are wrong here.

But that is your usual way of working...accusing others of the kind of nonsense in which you regularly engage.

2 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

You have said that I'm a believer countless times.

You have been repeating that mantra for years now..

Obviously, you think you know what you are talking about..

I do think I know what I a talking about.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Which is obviously wrong, but you haven't the balls to admit it.

Sad clown..

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I doubt you could show two of yours...

It's too bad you can't be trusted to bet real, cash money.

Stop shouting, it doesn't make your BS any more plausibel

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I understand him, and i've quoted passages from the article to show that i do. You just make up some old BS because you are constitutionally incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will gladly show a half dozen posts where I acknowledged that I was wrong.

Where are they then?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You misunderstood him twice, and now you are lying because you hate to admit you are wrong. Sad...

Step 1: Pedanta posts an excellent article, entitled:
Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists
And including the following:

Quote:

In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). .....

What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism. .....

Thrower and others – most notably the historian David Berman – trace the emergence of atheism as a distinct worldview to the end of the Enlightenment era, which, not coincidentally, is also the time that anti-theism first arose.

Step 2: Pedanta proceeds to criticize the article he has just posted:

Quote:

Previous • Post: # 5,822,772 • NextSetanta
Sat 22 Nov, 2014 05:06 pm

There was claim that the author makes which i thought was BS, and that is that "anti-theism" is a new phenomenon.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

-- Denis Diderot, 1713-1784[/u]

Diderot.... Wait.... Wasn't he an enlightment writer living in the 18th century?

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

Which is obviously wrong, but you haven't the balls to admit it.

Sad clown..

Not wrong at all, Timur. And you can be as sad a clown as you like. That won't change it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I doubt you could show two of yours...

It's too bad you can't be trusted to bet real, cash money.

Stop shouting, it doesn't make your BS any more plausibel

Not shouting, Setanta...and I have mentioned that many times.

Did you think Phoenix was shouting when she wrote in bold?

And why not show a few of your acknowledgements that you were wrong...just to show me to be wrong. I certainly will acknowledge I am wrong if you do.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I will gladly show a half dozen posts where I acknowledged that I was wrong.

Where are they then?

Will you show me yours if I show you mine?

0 Replies

Here’s one from earlier this month:

Quote:

Tell ya what I am going to do, Brandon...I am going to say that I was wrong in my answer of "no"...and apologize for my error.

I misread your statement...and when I read what you wrote here, I realize that I had.

Originally, as you can probably tell from my response to your original response and from my response to George, thought you were proposing that "the desire to prevent a unicameral body from becoming a tyrant" was THE reason the founding fathers proposed a bicameral congress.

Your wording (as a question), however, does not come to that point...not at all.

Your original comment:

Quote:
Sorry, wasn't having two congressional bodies, elected by different systems, part of the system of checks and balances the founders put in deliberately under the theory that a single legislature, like a person, can become a tyrant?

My disagreement with allowing sparsely populated states (often red states) a disproportionate influence on congressional decisions and on the electoral college caused me to blank out the “part of” portion of your post...and like looking for lost keys, it blanked out every time I read the comment.

So I do acknowledge I was wrong. I thank you for pointing it out…and I do apologize.

http://able2know.org/topic/258588-7#post-5810876

So much for the nonsense that I NEVER admit I am wrong!

I've got more...and I am sure I can put up two for every one that Setanta, who made the charge, puts up. But he is not a "put up" guy...he just likes to mouth off.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't care what you've mentioned. You started this bold-face BS because you were being (justifiably) ignored, and you can't stand. You really must think everyone here is stupid. Phoenix said she was doing it so that older people could read her posts more easily. Frankly, the green text just made it more difficult for me. No, i'm not going to play your stupid games, Frank. Go stroke off in the corner, that's essentially all you do when you come here.

Stop shouting, Frank, control your temper, calm down. You don't have anything to say that's worth the shouting.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I also quoted Michel de Montainge (16th century) and several others from even earlier. I quoted the article in which the author stated that anti-theism is a relatively new phenomenon. As i've already pointed out, i don't care that he contradicts himself. I understood him, and i undestood his academic's rant, and a rant coming from someone whose academic livelihood comes from writing about religion.

So now you're saying that no one can post an article, and then criticize that article? Did your boy god die and leave you in charge? Your English is poor, and your reasoning skills nonexistent. I quoted the line in the article in which the author states that anti-theism is a "relatively new phenomenon.""

I'll post any goddamned thing i want to post, you ****-for-brains clown, and criticize it if i want to.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know