daily Bible verse

[Flackle]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

Disagreeing with someone is not a way to repress their opinion. Telling someone to ignore someone else's statement because they disagree with them is. We should no repress dissension, its healthy for people to disagree. To think anything else is censorship.

So it's quite okay for you to "borderline censorship" when picking on others, but you want no one else to challenge you back.  MMmmm....  illogical.  It is healthy to have healthy and heated debates, within reason.  To be hateful, mocking, and disrespectful, with name-calling, certain type pictures, and hateful words and quotes, is not debating and discussing.  You should already know this.  You seem to just enjoy picking and disagreeing to goad others into arguing for the sake of arguing.  Pretty immature, actually...

I never stated that mocking others is borderline censorship. That was a misunderstanding on your part that I thought we had already got past. And again, imposing standards on debating that others may not agree with is censorship if you tell them to stop posting. You may be allowed to call someone out on what they say, and call it insulting all you want to. But to tell them to ignore this thread and to stop posting is something completely different.

[Flackle]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wou;dn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

 Oh my goodness, you poor thing.  You still don't get it.  Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

You are so on the wrong train track.  You are just nit-picking, so I will go back to ignoring you unless you want to discuss sensibly.  Good night to you.

I'm not nitpicking. I am trying to understand your post in a more organized manner. If you simply answer the question I propose then I can better respond to your argument.

[falcon9]

You are having a rough night with this - I'm so sorry.

On the contrary, the process is so simple to understand, even a faith-blinded fundie should be able to.  The only explantory options then are that you're being intentionally obtuse or, that you're actually that stupid, (note: it is not 'name-calling' to designate the stupid as stupid if they've unambiguously demonstrated stupidity ... your demonstration of ignorance is ambiguous).

I cannot "NOT OPEN" replies that are replies in the thread that I am already in, and responding in.

Sure you can; simply by using the ignore function provided by FC to help faith-blinded fundies to blind themselves further. 

You would like, apparently, for your replies to be accepted without question or rebuttal.

No, though I'd prefer actual reasoned questions and logical rebuttal in lieu of the unreasoned and irrational non-rebuttals put forth by fundies like you, nothing can correct that inherent flaw in religious blind faith.  

I will defend my Lord, my Bible, and my Christian friends ...

Go for it; in turn, I will oppose such specious religious superstitious which promote blind faith.

We see right through you, and you either don't like it when some challenge you ...

The faith-blinded cannot see, that's the core of the opposing viewpoints.  Your self-blinding, irrational empty faith-based nonsense doesn't challenge me, (which is why you see the same reasoned replies to the ame irrational religious dodges).

[jcribb16]

By golly, you are slipping again.  You are completing twisting the context of my response to Jedi's comment ... I was agreeing that no one should call anyone else a coward when hiding behind a screen name - because the one hiding behind the screen name is a coward themselves.
 
I SURE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, FALCON9.

Since I already pointed out that all members of FC use screen names, (including the religious fundies), you two are calling every member of FC "cowards".  If you are unable tp comprehend your own posted words, you are idiots.  Further, your contention is false; you wou;dn't last 6.66 minutes in a live, moderated debate - whether under a pseudonym or real name.

 Oh my goodness, you poor thing.  You still don't get it.  Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name.  I'm so sorry you are having a hard time with understanding what is meant here, instead of what you keep construing of it, for your own advantage and twisted context.

Person C Represents everyone on this forum other than and Person B

Person A uses a screen name.
Person B calls person A a coward because they hide behind a screen name.
Person C uses a screen name.
Person C are not cowards.

Is this really what you are saying, am I representing your logic here correctly?

You are so on the wrong train track.  You are just nit-picking, so I will go back to ignoring you unless you want to discuss sensibly.  Good night to you.

I'm not nitpicking. I am trying to understand your post in a more organized manner. If you simply answer the question I propose then I can better respond to your argument.

Go back, please, and read the posts from a few pages back, where it started with Hitch and falcon9, and went from there.  It's a very simple thing to understand what Jedi was implying and what I was saying in response to him.  If you cannot understand that, that's your problem.

[jcribb16]

You are having a rough night with this - I'm so sorry.

On the contrary, the process is so simple to understand, even a faith-blinded fundie should be able to.  The only explantory options then are that you're being intentionally obtuse or, that you're actually that stupid, (note: it is not 'name-calling' to designate the stupid as stupid if they've unambiguously demonstrated stupidity ... your demonstration of ignorance is ambiguous).

I cannot "NOT OPEN" replies that are replies in the thread that I am already in, and responding in.

Sure you can; simply by using the ignore function provided by FC to help faith-blinded fundies to blind themselves further. 

You would like, apparently, for your replies to be accepted without question or rebuttal.

No, though I'd prefer actual reasoned questions and logical rebuttal in lieu of the unreasoned and irrational non-rebuttals put forth by fundies like you, nothing can correct that inherent flaw in religious blind faith.  

I will defend my Lord, my Bible, and my Christian friends ...

Go for it; in turn, I will oppose such specious religious superstitious which promote blind faith.

We see right through you, and you either don't like it when some challenge you ...

The faith-blinded cannot see, that's the core of the opposing viewpoints.  Your self-blinding, irrational empty faith-based nonsense doesn't challenge me, (which is why you see the same reasoned replies to the ame irrational religious dodges).

And you, are refusing to discuss this from both perspectives, yours and mine.  Instead you are being the irrational one.  I am going to retire for the evening.  You and Flackle carry on and have a nice visit.  I am going to re-post a post from a little ways back, since I didn't get a response to it.  Good night.

[jcribb16]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

Disagreeing with someone is not a way to repress their opinion. Telling someone to ignore someone else's statement because they disagree with them is. We should no repress dissension, its healthy for people to disagree. To think anything else is censorship.

So it's quite okay for you to "borderline censorship" when picking on others, but you want no one else to challenge you back.  MMmmm....  illogical.  It is healthy to have healthy and heated debates, within reason.  To be hateful, mocking, and disrespectful, with name-calling, certain type pictures, and hateful words and quotes, is not debating and discussing.  You should already know this.  You seem to just enjoy picking and disagreeing to goad others into arguing for the sake of arguing.  Pretty immature, actually...

I never stated that mocking others is borderline censorship. That was a misunderstanding on your part that I thought we had already got past. And again, imposing standards on debating that others may not agree with is censorship if you tell them to stop posting. You may be allowed to call someone out on what they say, and call it insulting all you want to. But to tell them to ignore this thread and to stop posting is something completely different.

Yet it is quite okay for falcon9 to tell others that they can use the "Ignore" button, not open a thread, skip, etc. - but I cannot suggest the same.  You are really a mixed up person, or else are really enjoying what you think is trying to agitate people  Whatever - I'm leaving now - it's late here and I'm tired from my long and busy day.  Good night.

[jcribb16]

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't. 

Yet, that's how you religious adherents treat it; as if it's a platform for unopposed proselytizing.

But they also are not forums for atheists ...

Actually, the forums are for anyone; atheists, non-theists, xtian fundies, buddhists, wiccans, satanists, santeria, muslims, hindus, native american shaman, etc..  The forums are not exclusively xtian, as the constant proselytizing by xtians would make it appear - were it not for the opposition and dissenting viewpoints of non-xtians.

Don't open the thread; ignore; skip - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted. 

Take your own 'advice' and don't open opposing replies, ignore them, skip them and avoid feeling offended/insulted when your irrational superstitions are rejected.

I am getting a bit weary of your deceptive way of only quoting parts of what I say, instead of using the whole quote in its context, sir.  So this is what I was saying about it also not being a forum for atheists (THIS IS WHERE YOU CLIPPED MY QUOTE.  EXPLANATION TO FOLLOW.)

Quote from jcribb: (IN ITS ENTIRETY):
But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.

I have asked you before, to please "quote" my responses in their entirety.  Please do so, because otherwise, you are taking them out of context, to suit your agenda, and twist what I am saying, to mean something totally different than what I meant.  If you do not, I will ask Kohler to ask you to "quote" correctly.  There is that "Quote" button up there, and when you use it, please do not delete the rest of my words like you do, for reasons already listed.  Thank you, again.

[Flackle]

What's occurred is not as you imagine; those who choose to proselytize their religious blind faith here do not have a free pass to do so unopposed.  If you ever learn that, you can take it or leave it.

You are absolutely right.  

Like I need you to verify that when reason is all that's needed to do so.

Any of us, who are believers, will stand for Christ, when and wherever needed, and will stand up for others, who need support and encouragement.

The FC forums are not specifically platforms for religious proselytization.  Although that's not expressly prohibited by FC policies, neither is standing opposed to such attempts to inflict faith-blindness on others.  Here's what is likely to occur; you mind-blinded empty-faithers will continue to spew superstitious nonsense and others will choose to oppose it.

No they aren't.  But they also are not forums for atheists, such as you, yourself, to constantly slam the believers in the ground for what they believe, either.  Don't open the thread; ignore; skip; start your own - then you won't "feel" offended and insulted.  You entered - you let yourself be offended and insulted to the point of blaming believers for having "specifically made platforms for religious proselytization."  That's your problem and you need to deal with your own conflict about this.

Would you please stop trying to repress other people's ability to express their opinion? I have yet to see anyone try and stop you from expressing your opinion by being personally insulted by what you say. Although we may be insulted, we don't tell you to stop posting like you are doing here. Being insulted is a good thing, and its a good thing we express our dissension by arguing against what you believe in, instead of telling you to shut up. On the contrary, most of your opponents want you to respond. You have no business to tell us to stop posting because A. You did not start the thread, and B. You are not a moderator/admin for this site. If the owners of this site wanted us to stop posting they would tell us to do so. If they think this thread has gone too far they would close it. None of us has broken to the TOS as far as I can tell, so stop saying we have.

Would you please do the same?  Thank you.

Disagreeing with someone is not a way to repress their opinion. Telling someone to ignore someone else's statement because they disagree with them is. We should no repress dissension, its healthy for people to disagree. To think anything else is censorship.

So it's quite okay for you to "borderline censorship" when picking on others, but you want no one else to challenge you back.  MMmmm....  illogical.  It is healthy to have healthy and heated debates, within reason.  To be hateful, mocking, and disrespectful, with name-calling, certain type pictures, and hateful words and quotes, is not debating and discussing.  You should already know this.  You seem to just enjoy picking and disagreeing to goad others into arguing for the sake of arguing.  Pretty immature, actually...

I never stated that mocking others is borderline censorship. That was a misunderstanding on your part that I thought we had already got past. And again, imposing standards on debating that others may not agree with is censorship if you tell them to stop posting. You may be allowed to call someone out on what they say, and call it insulting all you want to. But to tell them to ignore this thread and to stop posting is something completely different.

Yet it is quite okay for falcon9 to tell others that they can use the "Ignore" button, not open a thread, skip, etc. - but I cannot suggest the same.  You are really a mixed up person, or else are really enjoying what you think is trying to agitate people  Whatever - I'm leaving now - it's late here and I'm tired from my long and busy day.  Good night.

I never stated is was ok for falcon9 to make such statements either.

[Flackle]

Go back, please, and read the posts from a few pages back, where it started with Hitch and falcon9, and went from there.  It's a very simple thing to understand what Jedi was implying and what I was saying in response to him.  If you cannot understand that, that's your problem.

As far as I can understand:

Jedi states Falcon9 was someone who hid behind a screen name to express their opinion was a coward.

You then agree with this statement.

Falcon9 then states it is illogical to call someone a coward because they hid behind a screen name because you are required to hide behind a screen name on Fusion cash, therefore behind a coward cannot have anything to do with hiding behind a screen name.

You then state that falcon9 statement was false with this statement: "Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name."

Ignoring the first part, because it isn't really relevant, we get: "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name."

Which leads me to believe that you think someone calling someone else a coward is a coward themselves because they are hiding behind a screen name. But you are still calling someone else a coward because they are hiding behind a screen name. Your arugument would make sense if it was this: "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves" which does make a little more logical sense. But it isn't, you stated because they ARE hiding behind the screen name. Thus you are calling someone a coward because of their screen name, regardless of any other reason you stated.

Which leads me back to what falcon9 said.

As far as I can see it falcon9's logic still stands.

I do carefully read and analyze everything you and jedi said, and this was the conclusion I reached. I then tried to simplify the argument to see if you really believed that someone is a coward if they hide behind a screen name on a forum where they are required to hide behind a screen name regardless if their bravery. Because such a statement is obviously illogical. But instead you circumvented my argument and told me to try again. Could you help me out by telling me where I am wrong, please?

[falcon9]

I never stated is was ok for falcon9 to make such statements either.

Since I simply returned her own 'suggestion' to her, (without expecting a refund for time wasted refuting illogic), any non-approval would rest with "jcribb16"'s original 'recommendations'.

[falcon9]

As far as I can understand:

Jedi states Falcon9 was someone who hid behind a screen name to express their opinion was a coward.

You then agree with this statement.

Falcon9 then states it is illogical to call someone a coward because they hid behind a screen name because you are required to hide behind a screen name on Fusion cash, therefore behind a coward cannot have anything to do with hiding behind a screen name.

You then state that falcon9 statement was false with this statement: "Not everyone in the forum - the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name."

Ignoring the first part, because it isn't really relevant, we get: "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves, because they ARE hiding behind the screen name."

Which leads me to believe that you think someone calling someone else a coward is a coward themselves because they are hiding behind a screen name. But you are still calling someone else a coward because they are hiding behind a screen name. Your arugument would make sense if it was this: "the comment was directed toward only anyone calling someone a coward, is a coward, themselves" which does make a little more logical sense. But it isn't, you stated because they ARE hiding behind the screen name. Thus you are calling someone a coward because of their screen name, regardless of any other reason you stated.

Which leads me back to what falcon9 said.

As far as I can see it falcon9's logic still stands.

You appear to be following the logical line of reasoning which was used to refute the illogical tangents supplied by the faux-jedi and "jcribb16". It shouldn't be too surprising that irrational persons will dispute rationality however, it is ironic when someone attempts to use reason to support unreasoned arguments.

I do carefully read and analyze everything you and jedi said, and this was the conclusion I reached. I then tried to simplify the argument to see if you really believed that someone is a coward if they hide behind a screen name on a forum where they are required to hide behind a screen name regardless if their bravery. Because such a statement is obviously illogical. But instead you circumvented my argument and told me to try again. Could you help me out by telling me where I am wrong, please?

The only omission in your reasoning was that of the conclusion; that she was implicitly calling "jedijohnnie" a coward because he "hides behind a screen name" AND under the 'premise' that, by calling another a "coward", the faux-"jedi" is a coward.  If that premise is false, (and, logically, it is), then anycontentions derived from it are logically false as well.

[IceKittyNM]

Such initially-posted religious proselytization is offensive to many non-xtians and I'm one of them.  Just as you have the option to post such mind-blinding religious propaganda, so too do others have the option to oppose such irrationality.

O LORD, our Lord ...

“He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.”
-- anonymous

^
|
|
|
Repetition......can't have that in here, falcon!!!  

[falcon9]

Repetition......can't have that in here, falcon!!!  

Apparently, we can since that's essentially all the bible-thumpers can come up with.  Seems fair to return repetitious cut & paste biblical requotes with repeating opposition quotes.

[Flackle]

The only omission in your reasoning was that of the conclusion; that she was implicitly calling "jedijohnnie" a coward because he "hides behind a screen name" AND under the 'premise' that, by calling another a "coward", the faux-"jedi" is a coward.  If that premise is false, (and, logically, it is), then anycontentions derived from it are logically false as well.

Oh I see. Is a bit clearer now. I really wasn't sure what Jscribb was trying to get at, only that the premises she was spouting where not logically sound. That makes the conclusion rather convoluted. I knew she was calling you a coward through her two premise's, but I didn't realize her "Calling someone a coward makes you a coward" premise also made Jedi a coward through that premise since you called you a coward to begin with. I see that now.

[constance312003]

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools   Romans 1:22