Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Mr. Setanta Wrote:



I told spendius that I had said my faith was not based on fear or ignorance and you didn't accept it. So, I conceded. What part of that don't you get?

You guys are really just killing me. I haven't laughed this much in the longest time.

MA's insanity is beginning to show.

Happy New Year C.I.!

I suppose it is only to be expected that SDers are ungallant alongside that trait they seem to have in believing their assertions are facts which is merely a self-serving outgrowth of impatience.

I am referring to his output over the past few years, not something typed in an unguarded moment.

Mr. Setanta Wrote:



I then put up posts that he did, indeed, label himself as an atheist. I mean, saying, "Yes, I'm an atheist." sounds like he was labeling himself.

I have been addressing a very simple issue here, edgar. He made the statement he doesn't label himself that way and then he did. Black and white.

Big deal. Just admit it, Mr. Setanta.

But that was an unguarded moment?

Momma angel, setanta has already explained why he answered in the affirmative that he was an atheist. I don't know how to copy post links but this is what he said,

Setanta wrote on Post: 1758044 -



If setanta says that he does not label himself as an atheist, we should take him at his word since he has explanation for saying he was an atheist on the thread you keep bringing up over and over again.

I suggest we move on already.

revel,
Moving on sounds like a wonderful idea!

To copy post links click on the post number in the timestamp of the post. Your post above is 1758316. Wait for the post to load in your browser than copy the URL from your browser window and paste it into the post you are writing.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1758316#1758316

revel,

It's not solved. I made the statement that he said he was an atheist. He then said to me, got proof of that big mouth?

Well, I gave him proof that he said "I'm an atheist". I didn't qualify it in any way. I said he said "I'm an atheist." And he did. Period. Black and white. He just won't admit it. Hey, I'd settle merely for I'm sorry I called you a big mouth.

Right, let's move on. What, it's not funny to you guys anymore? You don't like someone making fun of you or something you said? Now, where have I heard that before?

It seems all well and good as long as the ones that call themselves believers in God are being made fun of. But, let one of the self-professed (or implied) atheists get a little fun poked at them and OMG! We'd better stop this right now!

That is just meant in general. There are those on here that are atheist that do not engage in that type of behavior. So, if this doesn't apply to you personally, it's not meant to you.

Let me ask you a question, revel. Mr. Setanta says I didn't concede because I made a qualifying statement. I say I conceded. Now, he is making qualifying statements about his I am an atheist statement. I just say he said it.

From what I understand, it's okay for him to qualify his statements but it's not okay for me to qualify mine? :

Do you see any difference here? :wink:

That your effort in such regard was, as self-acknowledged, unsuccessful, confirms that your objection relevant to the charge be not founded in fact.

I submit that in no forensically valid, rationally developed, logically consistet manner may it be demonstrated that any faith-based belief system is or may be other than created out of fear of the unknown, that in fact such belief systems are artificial, archaic in that they are counter-intuitive in light of present knowledge, self-contradictory, and further that any faith-based belief system which purports to derive from any "Revealed Truth" contained and referenced only and wholly within its own canon and traditition fails from the outset to establish its credentials and authority.

Perhaps no stronger argument aginst the religionist proposition exists than the dispassioate, objective analysis of the religionist proposition itself; it simply does not stand to reason, but rather, and unambiguously, is by its own evidece an irrational denial mechanism, a wholly emotional response to life's inevitable uncertainties and inequities. Rather than accept and deal with the world as it is, religionists seek to shield themselves from reality through hiding behind mere superstition, at once claiming they do no such thing and confirming thereby that precisely is what they do.

Oh, and just to pop the bubbles of glee surrounding another essentially irrelevant and pointless, if not indeed witless, digression currently ongoing, I submit that in the context of the discussion from which Set's statement was lifted, the reference clearly is to his self-identification as an atheist within the parameters of the ontological religionist argument, and in no way confirms nor even implies that any condition of contradiction such as is alledged by those pursuing the silliness exists. To my satisfaction, Set has claimed and consistently has demonstrated he neiher believes nor disbelieves any theistic concept, but rather is without same, and in these discussions rejects the absolutist stances adopted by either camp.


But then, it don't take much to entertain some folk; just look at religion, for instance.

This began because MOAN shot off her big mouth with a post which included the following:



But that post itself came immediately after i had posted this:



So i made my position clear at the outset. As usual, the religionist cannot find any unambiguous evidence to support her claptrap, so she falls back on quoting out of context. Additionally, she "apologized" to anyone incorrectly identified as an atheist, as though it were an insult. It should be abundantly clear who is playing games here.

That's the reason I quit responding directly to her posts; it's useless.

Mr. Setanta,



As for me, I'm finished with the discussion. I explained my point over and over. You don't accept it fine.

You explained your point over and over. I don't accept fine.

Stalemate

Hardly--you're the one who continues to attempt to peddle an bankrupt imaginary friend superstition . . . no stalemate there--you lose . . .

Stalemate. ROFLMAO

Mr. C.I.,

I think it might be more apt to say you quit responding to my posts because when I also posted where you had (oh nevermind).

I need to convert to atheism. At least to some people's form of it. You get to be perfect. :wink:

Mr. Dyslexia,

If you are watching this thread. I am trying to say fine, let's drop it without either of us having to say we are right or wrong. But, Mr. Setanta does not seem to be accepting that.

I agree to just disagree and drop it.

Why should anyone drop it . . . you have claimed that your imaginary friend superstition is not a superstition, but an act of faith, or a series of acts of faith, as though that were something different. You have been asked to demonstrate that your faith is different than superstition. You have failed to do so.

Therefore, you are peddling superstition.

Why don't you go play with a frisbee or something? It's a really nice day out.

I said I am willing to drop this. I conceded to Timber on the challenge. If that is not good enough for you, that's just too bad. :wink:

Watch out for cars!

I shot the sheriff
but i did not shoot the deputy down.