Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Government Welfare or Private Charity?

Conservatives HATE the very idea, the very notion of WELFARE.

Me? I hate, nay I DESPISE inefficiency and ineffective solutions.  And it is with that thought that I give you this:



And this though by the immortal Ricky Gervais:


Yeah... Now would anyone like to even ATTEMPT to tell me why we should prefer to do thing things the way we do?

When the best thing you can say about organized religion is that it is a highly inefficient way to deal with poverty? Yeah: I say it's high time we started taxing [the shit out of] it, just as we do with EVERY OTHER VICE.

Good day.

314 comments:

  1. Considering your habit of lying when bringing supposed facts, I doubt you are telling the truth on this one too. Especially considering all that the Church does for the poor and those unable to care for themselves. Perhaps (doubtful) but perhaps you would be willing to take a little time and research just how much the Church GIVES to the community before you whine about how much they don't pay the government.
    Maybe you'd like to read just one article on that subject and then do some of your own research? No, I doubt it. You are already locked into your mindset, without any ability to change, that the Church is just there to collect money.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/03/31/what-do-churches-contribute-to-the-community/
    One simple example and the Church gives $6 million to the community. Let's see ... how many Church's are there? Hmmm ... 6 million times thousands equals ... perhaps what you whine about the Church NOT paying.
    Yeah, I've noticed you're not very good with facts, so I doubt you have gotten any better during this whine about organized religion.

    "Conservatives HATE the very idea, the very notion of WELFARE."

    Your bigotry and hatefulness are vividly showing during this current whine of yours. I thought you liberals were friends to all. I guess you're bigoted liberals ideals only allow you to like those who think just like you do and if someone fails to think like you do, then they are evil religious conservatives.

    And when gay people start giving BACK to the community (on the scale the Church does) perhaps you'd have a point with THAT whine. But, they don't ... so you don't.

    BTW, you wouldn't have any facts to back up your $83 billion statement, would you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your bigotry and hatefulness are vividly showing during this current whine of yours. I thought you liberals were friends to all. I guess you're [sic] bigoted liberals ideals only allow you to like those who think just like you do and if someone fails to think like you do, then they are evil religious conservatives."

      So, while whining about how Eddie is generalizing, you use him to generalize about liberals. That pretty obviously destroys your criticism.

      Delete
    2. At least I don't have to resort to lying and making shit up, like you do. Which immediately destroys any importance of anything you say.

      So, perhaps you would like a chance to be on-topic (for a change) and comment on how there are 400K religious institutions in the US. With many of them (I already brought examples) that give to the community with millions of dollars worth of services that the government is supposed to already be providing to it's people.
      Maybe you would like to comment on how Eddie seems to think the government would be more efficient at providing those services (that the Church provides). Of course, that government efficiency is so apparent when there are hundreds of thousands of Church's having to provide more help to the ones that the government lets 'slip through the cracks'. Yet he whines about the Church not paying taxes and seems to ignore what they DO provide.

      And, it is apparent that Eddie can't hold up his end of the conversation and relies on a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar to defend his stance for him.
      Eddie, I must say you made a good choice of who defends your positions for you.

      Delete
    3. "At least I don't have to resort to lying and making shit up, like you do."

      You made up a quote and attributed it to me. You keep forgetting that, somehow.

      "So, perhaps you would like a chance to be on-topic (for a change) and comment on how there are 400K religious institutions in the US. With many of them (I already brought examples) that give to the community with millions of dollars worth of services that the government is supposed to already be providing to it's [sic] people."

      I respond to what you say. If there's anything off-topic that requires a response, that's your fault. As to your vague numbers, so what? You're not showing any actual figures based on that, because you can't assume the amounts given by the "400K" you cite. And again, if they're really giving 83.5 billion, then why are there still food stamps? That's enough to cover the entire cost, per the graphic above, so why are they still around? If they're giving less than 83.5 billion, then obviously private charity isn't doing the job by any standard, and government help is needed. Notice that I already made these on-topic points in my post below, so pointing out your hilarious hypocrisy in a separate post was never a substitute.

      Bearing all of that in mind, do explain what sort of comment you think you can demand here.

      "Maybe you would like to comment on how Eddie seems to think the government would be more efficient at providing those services (that the Church provides). Of course, that government efficiency is so apparent when there are hundreds of thousands of Church's having to provide more help to the ones that the government lets 'slip through the cracks'."

      If the funding is inadequate, it's not a matter of efficiency at all. That would pretty clearly be the point, that taxation would provide enough to fully fund social support, instead of sacrificing billions for the sake of the "millions" (your term) of dollars worth of services from churches.

      "Yet he whines about the Church not paying taxes and seems to ignore what they DO provide."

      That can't be true, because below you said that this article is about the church providing a social safety net. Eddie couldn't have done that while simultaneously ignoring church charity. You'll have to figure out which story you want to go with. In the meantime, it's not clear how asserting that welfare is necessary automatically denies any worth of private charity. Church charity is insufficient. What are you hoping to see to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about it, and why would it be necessary for the article?

      "And, it is apparent that Eddie can't hold up his end of the conversation and relies on a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar to defend his stance for him."

      Here's you, below: "Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?" Did you provide any actual numbers to show that churches paid 83.5 billion in services? If not, you were lying. And if you say "yes", show where that happened.

      Delete
    4. Oh, and I did notice that you didn't address the post you responded to. I suppose you think that nobody can ever point out your hypocrisy, because that's never the actual topic of the article. Of course, you'll continue to call me a liar, while my supposed "lies" aren't the topic of any articles here, either. Funny how that works, isn't it?

      Delete
    5. "As to your vague numbers, so what? You're not showing any actual figures based on that, because you can't assume the amounts given by the "400K" you cite. And again, if they're really giving 83.5 billion, then why are there still food stamps? That's enough to cover the entire cost, per the graphic above, so why are they still around?"

      You don't trust easily verified numbers that I brought, but you believe the unprovable number that a cartoon brings (without any verification). Okay, that makes sense.

      "That would pretty clearly be the point, that taxation would provide enough to fully fund social support, instead of sacrificing billions for the sake of the "millions" (your term) of dollars worth of services from churches."

      See? You constantly lie. I said the amount the religious institutions provide in services would equal the amount of taxation Eddie is concerned over. NOT "millions". Honestly never has been your strong suit, huh?


      "That can't be true, because below you said that this article is about the church providing a social safety net."

      Here is what I ACTUALLY said (after you brought the phrase "social safety net" into the discussion): "Really. This article is about the Church being the one providing that safety net and how they don't pay taxes because of that. Not about republicans or conservatives.". Then you called that a debunked lie. In your mind, there seems to be only conservatives owning religious institutions. You forget that there are many religious institutions run by liberals and democrats. They give to the community too, when the government fails to do their job.

      "There's no significant difference between "should" and "supposed to"."

      Other than one meaning 'required' and the other 'expected'. Nothing significant about that.

      Delete
    6. "You don't trust easily verified numbers that I brought, but you believe the unprovable number that a cartoon brings (without any verification)."

      You didn't bring an actual total, you were merely assuming that what one church has given is what every church has given. Besides, you already said that churches provide that much in services, so it seems sort of late for you to question the figure at hand.

      "I said the amount the religious institutions provide in services would equal the amount of taxation Eddie is concerned over. NOT "millions".'

      I misread that part. You've only shown "millions", which is probably why I took that the wrong way. My apologies on that much, and your charges of dishonesty fail as always.

      "Here is what I ACTUALLY said (after you brought the phrase "social safety net" into the discussion):"

      Are you going to pretend that the concept of the social safety net is somehow foreign to this discussion?

      "Then you called that a debunked lie."

      Yes, because you can't claim that an ideology is off-topic when the very first sentence of the article mentions that ideology.

      "In your mind, there seems to be only conservatives owning religious institutions."

      How in the hell did you come up with that? You asked why the government didn't pay more for social services. I told you that conservatives opposed that spending. That has nothing to do with "owning" religious institutions whatsoever.

      And how, exactly, did any of that nonsense address what you quoted? You said the article was about the Church providing a social safety net (as you repeated), then said "Yet he whines about the Church not paying taxes and seems to ignore what they DO provide." If he ignored it, then his article couldn't have been on the Church providing any such thing. You respond as if you said something other than what I described, then your own evidence shows that my statement was accurate.

      "Other than one meaning 'required' and the other 'expected'."

      If it's required, then it would also be expected to be done. It's really not clear what your point is supposed to be. If you say that the government should make reparations, then you must believe that they're responsible for doing so. That's especially obvious considering how you justify the idea with comments about how the government is supposed to be paying the money themselves already.

      Incidentally, it seems sort of odd for you to address a quote from the other part of the thread here, especially since it's two days old. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but still seems random.

      Delete
    7. "You didn't bring an actual total, you were merely assuming that what one church has given is what every church has given."

      I did no such thing. I said the approx 400K religious institutions (in the US) only need to provide $200K (annually) each in services to equal the amount that Eddie is whining about. Since some provide waaay more, then others can provide less.

      "Are you going to pretend that the concept of the social safety net is somehow foreign to this discussion?"

      The discussion in on taxes not paid by religious institutions. With 2 examples of what the taxation could pay for ... without any verifiable numbers being brought by the cartoon. The discussion is not about all the social safety nets you think the government should be providing.

      "If it's required, then it would also be expected to be done. It's really not clear what your point is supposed to be."

      But, if it is "expected" (should) it isn't "required" (supposed to). Simple point. Can't get much more clear than that.

      Delete
    8. "I did no such thing. I said the approx 400K religious institutions (in the US) only need to provide $200K (annually) each in services to equal the amount that Eddie is whining about."

      You: "One simple example and the Church gives $6 million to the community. Let's see ... how many Church's are there? Hmmm ... 6 million times thousands equals ... perhaps what you whine about the Church NOT paying." Besides, you're not providing any total with your claim that all of these religious institutions need to give 200K, either. It's your wishful thinking that they do give enough, nothing more.

      "The discussion is not about all the social safety nets you think the government should be providing."

      What are "all" the social safety nets I've mentioned? Above, you have "net" as singular, now you've changed it to plural. So, again, how would the concept of a social safety net be foreign to this discussion?

      "But, if it is "expected" (should) it isn't "required" (supposed to)."

      Why not? If it's required, then you expect it, as I said. You didn't address that. You haven't even shown your source for your definitions. And again: "If you say that the government should make reparations, then you must believe that they're responsible for doing so." If you want to insist that there's some vital distinction at hand, then you'll have to make it fit what you clearly stated.

      Delete
    9. What are "all" the social safety nets I've mentioned?

      What YOU'VE mentioned? Who cares what YOU'VE mentioned? I'm commenting on what Eddie says. If you're not Eddie, then I don't care about your concerns.

      Delete
    10. "What YOU'VE mentioned? Who cares what YOU'VE mentioned?"

      You do: "The discussion is not about all the social safety nets you think the government should be providing." Note "you" in that quote, not "Eddie". Also recall that you said that I "brought the phrase" up, so you obviously weren't referring to what Eddie said. And on top of that, your point was that the discussion (hint: what Eddie put in the article) wasn't about what I was talking about. So...follow carefully now...since you're making that distinction, you pretty goddamn obviously have to be talking about what I've mentioned.

      You really just argued that I'm somehow off-topic in talking about a social safety net, and then when pressed said that you're only talking about what Eddie says. You were commenting on what I said, now say you don't care about what I said. Your incompetence is absolutely breathtaking.

      Delete
    11. And I also get to remind you of this, again: "Oh, yeah ... you and Eddie are the same person. There aint' [sic] no doubt about that."

      So, you don't believe you're making any distinction, since you're on record as being completely convinced that Eddie and I are the same person. Not only does your excuse make no sense, it's not even consistent with your stated beliefs.

      Delete
    12. You do:

      Wow, what an ego you have. It must really tear you up each time I warn people of your continual lying.

      Delete
    13. "Wow, what an ego you have."

      Coming from someone who thinks they can make up definitions for words without accountability, that's hilarious. And based on what, that I pointed out that you were commenting on what I was saying, not on Eddie? How would that prove "ego"?

      By the way, I truly enjoy it when you offer up these short, defensive posts. It shows that you know that you have nothing else to say.

      Delete
    14. Coming from someone who thinks they can make up definitions for words without accountability, that's hilarious.

      Too bad that hasn't happened. My usage of "sexist" fits within it's definition. Even within the definition of a word I didn't use ... the one you insinuated I used (which I didn't use). But, it's nice to see you commenting on one article during a conversation from a different article. Albeit, an incorrect observation, but at least you're trying.
      game, set, match

      Delete
    15. "My usage of "sexist" fits within it's [sic] definition."

      Which definition? You haven't provided one. And I know you're not referring to the one I posted, because there's no prejudice or discrimination against women demonstrated by advocating for women's rights. Your definition, which apparently involves the belief that some women are victims of suppression, is yet to be found.

      "Even within the definition of a word I didn't use ... the one you insinuated I used (which I didn't use)."

      What word would that be, and where was that "insinuated"?

      "But, it's nice to see you commenting on one article during a conversation from a different article."

      Is that supposed to be a criticism? That's hilarious, since in your very first response to my correction of your word usage, you said: "That's the standard you insist that I hold ( you say I believe people should be responsible for their situations, therefore I think they should be responsible for their situations)." That is a reference to this article, in case you had forgotten. Even better: "At least I'm not so stupid as to threaten to hit people on the head with a brick and then run away (like a little girl) when called on it." That's the only appearance of "brick" on that page. If you were referencing another article, then you sure as hell can't say anything about me here. If you weren't, then you were lying about Eddie. Neither option is good for you, but I'll let you choose (even though I know which it really is).

      Delete
    16. Which definition? You haven't provided one.

      Why would I need to provide one? You DO know how to use a dictionary, don't you?
      And, of course, I'm not using your definition. Sexism isn't the same as sexist.


      Is that supposed to be a criticism?

      No. An observation of your conversational abilities.


      If you were referencing another article, then you sure as hell can't say anything about me here.

      Factually, I was referencing an on-going threat of physical harm brought by Eddie. Is there a problem with doing that?

      Delete
    17. "Why would I need to provide one?"

      Because your usage of the word is absurdly inconsistent with the norm. Can you even point to anyone else assigning that meaning to the word? Not that another incorrect person would justify anything, but at least you would have some semblance of an excuse.

      "You DO know how to use a dictionary, don't you? And, of course, I'm not using your definition. Sexism isn't the same as sexist."

      Funny, when you type "sexist" into the search at Merriam-Webster.com, "sexism" is what turns up. And considering that "sexist" is listed in plain sight there, it's even more obvious that the people running that page dispute your idiotic claim. Or is your assertion supposed to be more credible than the dictionary?

      Just for fun, what do you think "sexist" means if not "espousing sexism" or similar phrasing? What base word have you ever seen which gains a whole new meaning when switching from one suffix to the other? And if there is one, why would you assume that's the case here?

      Is your game now going to be pretending that there is a definition which supports your usage, but you're just going to act like a petulant child and refuse to show it? I can easily find your own comments about backing up what one says, if you like.

      "No. An observation of your conversational abilities."

      Then you had no point. That's an odd use of "game, set, match", but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand such a simple phrase.

      "Factually, I was referencing an on-going threat of physical harm brought by Eddie. Is there a problem with doing that?"

      What "on-going" threat? And unless you think this article is about getting hit with a brick, your own advice would be to take that comment to the previous thread. Note your posts below for evidence.

      Where's the "insinuated" word you were referring to? You do realize it would be insanely hypocritical for you to rely on vague accusations of "insinuation", right? If you have trouble figuring out why, just let me know and I'll give you a hint.

      Delete
    18. Funny, when you type "sexist" into the search at Merriam-Webster.com, "sexism" is what turns up.

      So your excuse (this time) is you are blaming Merriam-Webster? Classic

      If this will help: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexist
      It gives BOTH definitions right next to each other. I think they do that for the less intelligent folk who don't know that 2 different words have 2 meanings.


      Is your game now going to be ... blah blah blah

      Are you crying again? I'm so sorry to make you cry so often. Is it 'that time of month' for you again and you feel extra emotional at this time? If so, I'll be more gentle as I shoot down each of your points (on and off-topic ones).


      And unless you think this article is about getting hit with a brick, your own advice would be to take that comment to the previous thread.

      Or I could take it to the FBI or other local authorities and have legal recourse achieved. Threats of physical violence are against the law. Even on the internet. So stop your crying and be thankful that I do not pursue that course of action. Otherwise you'd have no one to talk to.


      Where's the "insinuated" word you were referring to?

      It must be true. You are intellectually challenged. You insinuated I used the word "sexism". I did not. I used the word "sexist". Different words. Even if your intelligence level doesn't allow you to grasp that, it IS true.

      Delete
    19. BTW, brabantio, my 'hit with brick' comment was completely and totally within acceptable usage at the time I used it. It was not off-topic since I was replying to a statement directed AT me concerning my intelligence level by the author of this web-site. Since physically threatening people is illegal it would be stupid to do it. I pointed that out. Since you are discussing at the (apparently) same intelligence level, I seriously doubt you'll understand what was just said. And probably run away, like a little girl, just like Eddie did.
      Eddie says for all to bring their arguments. I guess most will assume he will stick around and at least defend what he posts. I guess I'm wrong on that point.

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1396026343025#c5346674127184295569

      Delete
    20. "So your excuse (this time) is you are blaming Merriam-Webster? Classic"

      There's no "excuse", because I didn't do anything wrong. You stupidly questioned my definition, and I proved its legitimacy in response.

      "It gives BOTH definitions right next to each other. I think they do that for the less intelligent folk who don't know that 2 different words have 2 meanings."

      Why would it give both definitions together, if there was any significant difference between them? You just shot yourself down on that one. Even worse, your own evidence shows that "sexist" simply refers to "sexism", so now you have no argument that you can't use my definition because they're different words. To make it worse still, that definition is consistent with what I provided, and not with your usage. Thanks for the link.

      "Are you crying again?"

      No, I'm giving you a chance to provide a definition in order to avoid being a shameless hypocrite. Is there a problem with that?

      "Or I could take it to the FBI or other local authorities and have legal recourse achieved."

      No, you couldn't. The comment wasn't even directed at you, for one glaring reason. Further, you can hardly claim that you feel threatened by physical violence when you speak up after the statement in order to point out that you fit into the category that's supposedly being threatened. Especially when you make it a specific point to remind him of the "threat" in question. Your own actions show that you didn't really perceive it to be a danger. And hyperbole isn't grounds for investigation at all. Expressions of frustration aren't automatically taken literally and their authors hurled into jail over it.

      "Threats of physical violence are against the law. Even on the internet."

      I know more than you do about it. I got the FBI onto the doorstep of a lunatic who threatened me over the internet. The differences? First, he was talking to me specifically. Second, I didn't volunteer to be the subject of a previously stated threat. Third, he didn't use phrases that reek of hyperbole or would appear to be used for comic effect. Fourth, he gave me his address, inviting me to confront him in person, and thereby proving intent. You have none of those factors to show for yourself.

      "So stop your crying and be thankful that I do not pursue that course of action."

      I notice that "crying" turns up when your hypocrisy is demonstrated, now. Funny how you define what you do as "commenting", but every observation that you don't like magically fits into one of your derogatory definitions.

      "You insinuated I used the word "sexism"."

      No, I didn't. I'm merely accustomed to dealing with people who aren't so ignorant that they aren't even familiar with common suffixes. However, by that standard, you insinuated that I used the word "commented" instead of "commentary", and those words actually do have different meanings.

      Delete
    21. "Different words."

      Effectively, no. And I can prove it by simply challenging you to explain how the supposed switch would change anything. Be specific. What difference in meaning would alter your response in any way? For an example, I pointed out how "commentary" meant "opinion", while "commented" may only mean "mentioned". So when I'm talking about opinion, I'm not going to accept a word that makes it seem as if it's the mere presence of a phrase is what's being disputed. Feel free to use that as a guideline for your response.

      "BTW, brabantio, my 'hit with brick' comment was completely and totally within acceptable usage at the time I used it."

      You'll have to publish your guide on what makes references to other articles "acceptable". Because it seems like your previously stated viewpoints on similar issues would be much more relevant than your strained connection between intelligence and a comment about people who oppose raising the minimum wage.

      By the way, it sure sounds like you're crying. I'd love to see you list the vital differences between how you pointed out how Eddie was "stupid" and how I pointed out that you say that I'm supposed to back up what I say while you don't hold yourself to the same standard. It certainly looks like you're defending observations of self-contradictory behavior for yourself, while others are "crying" when you're the victim of those observations.

      By the way, where's your evidence of an "on-going" threat? That would mean something said more than once, at the very least.

      Delete
    22. Effectively, no. And I can prove it by simply challenging you to explain how the supposed switch would change anything.

      I brought the definitions. Read them.
      I won't hire you because you're a woman= sexism
      I don't think women can do the same work as a man= sexist
      You must really be stupid if you don't know there is a difference.


      It certainly looks like you're defending observations of self-contradictory behavior for yourself, while others are "crying" when you're the victim of those observations.

      Yes, it would look that way to stupid people.


      That would mean something said more than once, at the very least.

      No, it wouldn't. Jeez, you're no smarter than him. Here is what he said: "The next time I hear one of you cheap, greedy bastards say that you "honor hard work" or that you'll give an "honest day's pays for an honest day's work...?" ...I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick." http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/02/this-is-important.html#comment-form

      That is an on-going threat to anyone who fits within his criteria. Again, you have no intellect to understand that, do you? I'm still waiting for him to show up and attempt to follow through on that threat of physical violence. But, like the pussy I think he is, that won't happen. Hell, he won't even answer for his own lies, let along answering for his on-going threats.Hell, YOU don't answer for your own lies, I would expect the same pussiness from you too.

      Delete
    23. "I brought the definitions. Read them."

      I did, and they supported my usage, while contradicting yours.

      "I won't hire you because you're a woman= sexism
      I don't think women can do the same work as a man= sexist"

      Your own definition of "sexism": "1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender." Your "sexist" example clearly fits the second definition of "sexism".

      "You must really be stupid if you don't know there is a difference."

      The difference doesn't create any distinction for the understanding of the concept or discussion of it. That's why Merriam-Webster associates the two words together, and why your own link does as well. For another example, if you're talking to someone who says they have "acrophobia" and you use the word "acrophobic", you wouldn't accept being corrected due to the "different word". It's the exact same concept, so the change in form doesn't bear any mention. What you're doing goes beyond splitting hairs.

      "Yes, it would look that way to stupid people."

      Ad hominem. If you want to demonstrate intelligence, address the argument.

      "That is an on-going threat to anyone who fits within his criteria."

      No, it isn't. First off, even if it was serious, it applies to one person and one occurrence. There's no continuation, process or progress involved. Perhaps you meant "open-ended". "Ongoing" would apply to continued or especially escalated behavior, not the mere fact that someone who said something however long ago still exists.

      "I'm still waiting for him to show up and attempt to follow through on that threat of physical violence."

      I'm sure you're terrified, considering how you volunteered yourself after the comment. Note the sarcasm.

      Also note that you couldn't address how your claim of a "threat" wouldn't qualify for any law enforcement action. It's not a "threat", so your incorrect usage of "ongoing" isn't even relevant.

      "But, like the pussy I think he is, that won't happen."

      So, not resorting to violence is a sign of cowardice? Fascinating. In the meantime, feeling threatened by hyperbole that's not even directed at yourself demonstrates a remarkable lack of courage.

      Delete
    24. The difference doesn't create any distinction for the understanding of the concept or discussion of it.

      So, you are admitting there is a difference? Thank you.


      Ad hominem (sic).

      Couldn't resist. You're acting incredibly stupid on this thread. Maybe it isn't an act, I'm not sure.


      No, it isn't.

      See? What I just told you is being proven by you.


      So, not resorting to violence is a sign of cowardice?

      Are you saying all women are cowards? Wow, that's kind of sexist, isn't it? BTW, not sexism, just plain sexist. Oops, there's a difference between the meanings of the words. Ah ha ha ha


      Delete
    25. "So, you are admitting there is a difference?"

      You: "And, of course, I'm not using your definition. Sexism isn't the same as sexist." That's the quote in contention here, since you clearly forgot. My argument is not that the two words are exactly identical, and it never needed to be. The concept that directly connects the two words is the same, so you had no reason not to use my definition. Your own link proved that, and your hilarious attempt at distinguishing between the two words made it even more clear that there's no significant difference. You're welcome.

      "Ad hominem (sic)."

      Wrong. Even besides your glaring failure to use brackets, there's no error for you to point out.

      "Couldn't resist. You're acting incredibly stupid on this thread."

      That's another ad hominem. And while you can't explain what's "stupid" about anything I've said, you're the one lobbing insults instead of addressing arguments. Intelligent people don't need to do that.

      "See? What I just told you is being proven by you."

      Another ad hominem. Thank you for proving that you have no legal argument, since you can't respond in a rational manner.

      "Are you saying all women are cowards?"

      I asked you about what you said. My point would obviously be that not resorting to violence is not a sign of cowardice, contrary to your suggestion. Besides that, where did I say anything about gender?

      "Wow, that's kind of sexist, isn't it? BTW, not sexism, just plain sexist."

      You would never put a noun after "that's kind of", because nouns don't describe or modify anything. Since "sexist" is an adjective, it would follow that phrase. However, the phrases "that's sexism" and "that's sexist" would both be valid, and would have the same meaning. It's only the "kind of" phrase that dictates the use of the adjective, not any aspect or degree of meaning.

      I find it amusing when you try to be clever, though. It's a lot like watching a cat jump at the dot from a laser pointer, always as if this time it's going to succeed.

      Delete
    26. Intelligent people don't need to do that.

      "need" or "want"? I didn't "need" to do that. But, you have earned that kind of respect, so I wanted to.


      Thank you for proving that you have no legal argument, ...

      When was "legal" part of this discussion? Changing criteria after you get beat down so badly? This is becoming a common issue with you. Do you remember what this article is about? Or are you just babbling for the sake of watching your head bobble?


      Besides that, where did I say anything about gender?

      When you replied to my "pussy" statement. Men don't have pussies, only women. So, you are obviously insinuating that women are cowards. That is sexist (not sexism). Note the difference between the two words?


      You would never put a noun ....

      Lost another argument, so you (again) resort to babbling? Great conversational tactics you use, there.


      Even besides your glaring failure to use brackets, there's no error for you to point out.

      Well, if I used it incorrectly then I didn't point out any error. Are you really such a simpleton that you can't figure that out?

      Delete
    27. ""need" or "want"? I didn't "need" to do that. But, you have earned that kind of respect, so I wanted to."

      If that was your actual viewpoint, you wouldn't have tried to present any argument at the start. But I have no problem believing that your whims spur immoral behavior, if that's the alternative you really want to fall back on.

      "When was "legal" part of this discussion?"

      When you tried to argue that Eddie's hyperbole constituted a "threat" that could have resulted in his arrest for and conviction of a crime.

      "Do you remember what this article is about?"

      I do, yes. Your point would be that you shouldn't have tried to make an argument about a comment on another thread, apparently.

      "When you replied to my "pussy" statement. Men don't have pussies, only women."

      You didn't say "have": "But, like the pussy I think he is, that won't happen." Obviously, the use of "he" proves by itself that you weren't talking about women.

      "So, you are obviously insinuating that women are cowards."

      So when I asked you where I said anything about gender, you thought I asked where I insinuated something about gender. You were confused. But according to your logic, you must think that all women are cowards. You're the one who introduced the term in reference to Eddie's supposed cowardice, and you also insist that any reference to the term is a commentary on women.

      "Lost another argument, so you (again) resort to babbling?"

      So you know, your use of childish responses instead of silence pinpoints exactly where you're the most bitter about seeing your idiotic arguments dismantled.

      "Well, if I used it incorrectly then I didn't point out any error."

      Not if you've been paying attention, no. When you actually did point out an error earlier, I noted that you didn't use brackets while admitting the mistake. Besides that, if you weren't trying to point out an error, then you must have inserted your notation randomly. Is that your claim?

      Delete
    28. When you tried to argue that Eddie's hyperbole constituted a "threat" that could have resulted in his arrest for and conviction of a crime.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

      What a simpleton, you are. Read "c". He is in Michigan, I am in California. That is "interstate communications". That also makes it a FEDERAL CRIME. Honestly, he should go back and remove that before he gets prosecuted for threatening injury to potentially millions of people.


      Obviously, the use of "he" proves by itself that you weren't talking about women.

      Of course, I wasn't. But you were. I was talking about someone who acts like a little girl. You brought in the hate-speech.


      So you know, your use of childish responses instead of silence pinpoints exactly where you're the most bitter about seeing your idiotic arguments dismantled.

      When ANY of my arguments are dismantled I'll remember your warning. Until then, you lose another argument where you rely on lying and mis-quoting. Is that a big L on your forehead? Maybe it's just the ash left over from Ash Wednesday. Oh wait, you don't believe in that stuff, it must be a big L on your forehead.

      Delete
    29. "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875"

      In other words, you were making a legal argument. I accept your apology in advance. Regarding your link, I already told you I know more than you do about it. You still have to prove it's an actual threat, and you volunteering to be the "victim" of a hyperbolic comment to nobody in particular doesn't qualify.

      "Honestly, he should go back and remove that before he gets prosecuted for threatening injury to potentially millions of people."

      That claim would get laughed out of court even if there was a threat, because his comment specified one person and one occurrence.

      "Of course, I wasn't. But you were."

      That's literally impossible. You: "When you replied to my "pussy" statement." If it's your statement, and I merely replied to it, then I couldn't have added or changed any meaning. So you'll have to cite something specific.

      "Until then, you lose another argument where you rely on lying and mis-quoting [sic]."

      You haven't shown any of either. In the meantime, you cropped two quotes in order to change their meaning, both in a single post.

      And when you make zero effort to address an argument, you lose. Whether you really believe that your declarations of victory actually mean something, or whether it's just an act to compensate for your humiliation, they aren't a substitute for reason. Nobody's forcing you to be here, so you don't deserve any charity. You don't get a trophy for participation. You either make an argument or you instantly prove your impotence in this arena. Welcome to life. You don't succeed because you stomp your feet and really, really wish that you did. Your inferiority doesn't magically vanish because you hate those who humiliate you. And everyone can see when you fail to address points and prove that you are weak.

      If you want to win, make the effort. Class dismissed.

      Delete
    30. You haven't shown any of either.

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1397174564759#c941855027212722605

      both are covered with that one. You even had to re-post it correctly, then I showed how you misquoted me by taking it out of context. And, I've pointed out several times you lied.


      That claim would get laughed out of court even if there was a threat, because his comment specified one person and one occurrence.

      Apparently, you didn't read his threat. He said "bastards". Notice the "s" making the word plural. That would be ANY bastard, who says what he stated, he would hit on the head with a brick. Otherwise explain how "bastards" can only be ONE bastard. There was no one else posting at that time, so he left it as an open threat of physical injury towards any number of people.

      If you want to win, make the effort. Class dismissed.

      If I want to win, all I have to do is post and Eddie runs away and you start lying.
      Game ... Set ... Match

      Delete
    31. "both are covered with that one. You even had to re-post it correctly, then I showed how you misquoted me by taking it out of context."

      I had already posted it in its entirety. And it was never posted incorrectly, because you were asserting I had agreed with something that you didn't write. I posted the phrase that I actually agreed with, not the extraneous wording.

      "And, I've pointed out several times you lied."

      Like how I "lied" by saying that you asserted the opinion of the author of a cartoon? Which you try to prove by arguing that you were talking about the cartoon, as if it was magically separated from any person? Yes, you've claimed lies several times, every time folding under even the most superficial scrutiny.

      "He said "bastards"."

      He said "one of", first. That means one person. He also specified the "next" time. Nothing was said or implied about anything after that, so that's only one instance.

      "If I want to win, all I have to do is post and Eddie runs away and you start lying."

      You didn't even try to show that you do make an effort, cementing my point. You don't make an argument, you automatically lose. Keep demonstrating it if you like.

      Delete
    32. He also specified the "next" time.

      That's right. An ON-GOING threat of physical harm is being forwarded by Eddie. You are one stupid shit, if you can't figure that one out.


      Like how I "lied" by saying that you asserted the opinion of the author of a cartoon?

      I hadn't thought of that one. But, it must feel good to finally get these sins off your chest. At least you admitted one. The others ... well, you'll just continue being a punk ass lying bitch and deny them even as I expose them.


      You didn't even try to show that you do make an effort, cementing my point.

      Hey, numb-nuts ... you just admitted to lying. Why are you saying I have to show an effort. Bring a 40 page dissertation complete with verifiable facts to prove your lying ass side of the story. Mainly because you don't bring facts, you make shit up as you go. But, you couldn't write a 40 page paper, you aint smart enough to click the pen.

      You are one stupid mother fucker, you liar.

      Now, if you have any balls, bring some facts to back up your stance. Demonstrate how much knowledge you claim to have and back up your lying ass shit with facts.

      I expect you'll whine some more about swearing and God, but you'll bring nothing to the argument. No surprises there. You haven't the balls to back up what you say.

      Delete
    33. "That's right. An ON-GOING threat of physical harm is being forwarded by Eddie."

      No, you could claim "open-ended", but there has to be something actually occurring for "ongoing". If he was alluding to his previous comment from time to time, for instance. Just saying something once doesn't cut it. If you think about it (just an expression, not an expectation), almost any threat would be "ongoing". Either the threat is called off, in which case there's no threat, or it's not, which would be "ongoing" by your personal definition. So the term doesn't really modify anything, which would lead a reasonable person to believe that it must mean something different from what you say it does.

      "At least you admitted one."

      Wrong. I put "lied" in quotes, meaning I don't accept your usage. Just like how you put "matter of fact" in quotes in one of your posts below.

      "Hey, numb-nuts ... you just admitted to lying."

      Context: "Yes, you've claimed lies several times, every time folding under even the most superficial scrutiny." That isn't particularly consistent with admitting to anything.

      "Mainly because you don't bring facts, you make shit up as you go."

      Like your definition of "sexist"?

      "Now, if you have any balls, bring some facts to back up your stance. Demonstrate how much knowledge you claim to have and back up your lying ass shit with facts."

      Facts about what? You make insane guesses to assert a matter of fact, and I'm supposed to do research in order to point that out? You'll have to be more specific as to what I'm supposed to provide and why. Also, let's see you bring some facts to show that your seemingly unique word usage is actually appropriate.

      "I expect you'll whine some more about swearing and God, but you'll bring nothing to the argument."

      Where did I "whine" about swearing and God?

      By the way, I can't be intimidated. Bluster and rant all you like, if it makes you feel better, but you're just as impotent as when you try to dictate reality for others.

      Delete
    34. Like your definition of "sexist"?

      No completely different than that. My usage was correct. You lie and make shit up.


      Facts about what?

      Oooo, you got me on that one. You haven't brought any facts so you CAN'T defend your position.
      That's the first time you outsmarted me. I guess there's a first time for everything.


      Where did I "whine" about swearing and God?

      Here, you lying little bitch: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397215478968#c3580525447829451126


      By the way, I can't be intimidated.

      Yes you can. That's why you replied so quickly this time. How you appear to other liberals is of great importance to you. More important than giving to the community. You don't give to the community, do you? I didn't think so. Not only are you a lying little bitch, you're cheap too and expect others to do the work for you.

      Delete
    35. "No completely different than that. My usage was correct."

      Prove it.

      "Oooo, you got me on that one."

      Yes, I know. You can't even explain what you're asking for.

      "Here, you lying little bitch:"

      This?:"And be sure to repent for your immoral behavior on Sunday." That has nothing to do with my views at all.

      "Yes you can."

      No, I really can't. You're flying off the handle, while I maintain complete control.

      Delete
    36. Yes, I know. You can't even explain what you're asking for.

      Obviously, my meaning was you aren't even sure of what's being discussed. Great job of expressing your reading comprehension abilities.


      This?

      That's right. Hey, you're starting to understand reality, now. Good thing you're only 40? 45? you got plenty of time to correct your innate ability to mis-quote, mis-understand and mis-state every comment you reply to.


      while I maintain complete control.

      Control has nothing to do with intimidation. Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    37. "Obviously, my meaning was you aren't even sure of what's being discussed."

      That's not consistent with the context.

      "That's right."

      I don't see a comment regarding what I said, for some reason. You must have forgotten to leave one.

      "Control has nothing to do with intimidation."

      Of course it does. If I'm maintaining complete control, then you're not instilling any fear in me. Even further, you're not compelling or deterring me in any way. Check the definition. Look up "complete" while you're at it.

      Delete
    38. You're demanding that I look up words in a dictionary in order for you to prove you aren't intimidated? Wow, that is a good one. I obviously do, or you wouldn't be demanding such a stupid thing. Thanks for the laugh, troll.

      Delete
    39. "You're demanding that I look up words in a dictionary in order for you to prove you aren't intimidated?"

      That's based upon the idea that you actually think that you have an argument to make. You can always just run away, instead.

      "I obviously do, or you wouldn't be demanding such a stupid thing."

      Why would expecting you to justify your own words be "stupid"? Especially since you said: "Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about."? Apparently my choices are to remain silent (which you would surely claim proves that I'm "intimidated"), or to make an argument (which you did claim proves that I'm "intimidated"). That would be indisputably unreasonable of you.

      On the other hand, your lame argument makes you appear rather flustered and off-balance. People may perceive that unfavorably, just so you're aware.

      Delete
    40. People may perceive that unfavorably, just so you're aware.

      As if I care. This is a liberal site, those people perceive thing unfavorably naturally. You're a good example of that. So is Eddie. I've only seen one or two posters, here, who actually have common sense. You aren't one of them.

      Delete
    41. "This is a liberal site, those people perceive thing [sic] unfavorably naturally."

      The conservatives at MMfA thought you were bonkers as well. It's not a political issue.

      Delete
    42. As if I care ... again. Insert "at mmfa" in place of "here" in my previous statement. But, since we're not talking about mmfa, you are admitting I'm right about the general perception of posting HERE.

      Delete
    43. "But, since we're not talking about mmfa, you are admitting I'm right about the general perception of posting HERE."

      No, because you're not a victim of bias. Everyone thought you were out of your mind. The general atmosphere wasn't a factor in that, so it's not an excuse for you here.

      Delete
    44. No, because you're not a victim of bias.

      Who said anything about "bias"?


      Everyone thought you were out of your mind.

      Not true. I had several 'thumbs-up' during my time there and currently I have some 'followers'. Another lie by you.

      Delete
    45. "Who said anything about "bias"?"

      You did: "This is a liberal site, those people perceive thing [sic] unfavorably naturally."

      "Not true. I had several 'thumbs-up' during my time there and currently I have some 'followers'."

      Under another name, obviously. The "thumbs" started after you were banned. You should also explain how I'm supposed to be responsible for knowing anything about your followers, and why that would be relevant to the comment about your vast unpopularity years ago. Another claim of "lie" goes up in smoke.

      Incidentally, there was someone on the site who habitually gave thumbs-ups to all conservatives and thumbs-downs to all liberals. So you might want to take your "several" marks of approval with a grain of salt.

      Delete
    46. You did: "This is a liberal site, those people perceive thing [sic] unfavorably naturally."

      Hmm, I don't see the word "bias" in there. Do you? Are you twisting what I DID say into what you claim I said?


      Under another name, obviously.

      Autopsychic then, William now. Got a problem with that? Obviously, I can't use the same name, if you know anything about computers. But, you're just a paper filer, so I doubt you know anything about computers. Especially considering you don't even know how to reply to a comment without it going to the wrong place.


      The "thumbs" started after you were banned.

      No, they were there. Perhaps you entered mmfa AFTER me and you don't really know what you're talking about. Perhaps you're just lying. Which is it?


      You should also explain how I'm supposed to be responsible for knowing anything about your followers, and why that would be relevant to the comment about your vast unpopularity years ago.

      Well, you implied it was complete unpopularity, not "vast". That is my point. So my claim of "lie" is smoldering in your ass because you did lie and now you can't get out of it.


      So you might want to take your "several" marks of approval with a grain of salt.

      Why? You can't prove anything one way or the other. As I have continually said, you just make shit up and hope some of it sticks somewhere (anywhere). Good luck with that strategy, troll.

      Delete
    47. "Hmm, I don't see the word "bias" in there. Do you?'

      I didn't put the word in quotes, so you never had a reason to expect to see it.

      "Are you twisting what I DID say into what you claim I said?"

      No, you quoted the word I used and asked who said anything about it. You didn't ask where you had used the word. Is there some reason for disputing the term that you're forgetting to mention here?

      "Autopsychic then, William now. Got a problem with that?"

      No, but since I wasn't talking about your new name, you can't use it to claim a "lie".

      "But, you're just a paper filer, so I doubt you know anything about computers. Especially considering you don't even know how to reply to a comment without it going to the wrong place."

      You went to the wrong place on the "cartoon" article. There also isn't a lot of paper filing on a digital system. If you knew anything about computers, you'd know that.

      "No, they were there. Perhaps you entered mmfa AFTER me and you don't really know what you're talking about."

      I started at MMfA in 2004. The thumbs came around later on, and you were booted pretty early.

      "Well, you implied it was complete unpopularity, not "vast"."

      Just the opposite, actually. Everyone who mentioned you agreed that you were out of your mind. If there was someone who disagreed, they were too embarrassed to speak up at the time. Besides, you're not explaining why a completely different time frame is supposed to be relevant.

      "So my claim of "lie" is smoldering in your ass because you did lie and now you can't get out of it."

      I hate to break it to your ego, but your words have no weight. Besides that, even if I ever did lie, I could just use your tactic and act as if my assertion otherwise is gospel. It's not as if you could reasonably object to that.

      "Why? You can't prove anything one way or the other."

      Neither can you. I was just informing you, since you seemed to be under the false impression that partisanship is to blame for how people view you. It's your responsibility, not everyone else's.

      "As I have continually said, you just make shit up and hope some of it sticks somewhere (anywhere)."

      Like your definition of sexist. Or religion, in the context of churches. Or "income laws". Sorry, you have no examples of anything like that. If I'm misremembering, then I can simply follow your example of not caring. And you can't say a damn thing about that without being a hypocrite.

      Delete
    48. No, but since I wasn't talking about your new name, you can't use it to claim a "lie".

      Yes, I can.


      You went to the wrong place on the "cartoon" article.

      I don't think so, but I'm not pretending to have such expertise with the computer, like you do. Remember, I'm just a lowly mechanic. You said so yourself.


      Everyone who mentioned you agreed that you were out of your mind.

      Let's see ... "everyone" at a fanatical left wing hate-site didn't like the truth-telling right-winger ... go figure. But, thanks for admitting you lied.


      I hate to break it to your ego, but your words have no weight.

      Of course they have no weight to one of the original members of the hate-site mmfa.


      Like your definition of sexist. Or religion, in the context of churches.

      My use of and definition of sexist match each other. You have not shown how they do not. My provided definition of religion fit the way I used it. If you have a problem with the way M-W defines the words at their site, you shouldn't be continually using them. They are your preferred dictionary, so I specifically search theirs first. And ... voila ... it shows that you are wrong, quite a few times. The funny thing is you whine about the definition each time you don't like how they define certain words that you can't explain your position for. Like "sexism" being different than "sexist" and how atheism fits within the definition of "religion". I don't mind being proven wrong (when it happens) but at least I don't whine and lie about it afterwards, like you do, troll.
      Like when you asked for examples of "income laws" so I bring an ACTUAL law governing what income is and you continue with your whines about how it isn't an example of an income law because it doesn't have the EXACT words "income laws" in it.


      If I'm misremembering, then I can simply follow your example of not caring. And you can't say a damn thing about that without being a hypocrite.

      Ooops, I should have read that first because I said something. Now, explain how I am being a hypocrite.






      Delete
    49. "Yes, I can."

      No, you can't. It wasn't within the scope of my comment, therefore I'm not responsible for it. By your logic, your claim that you have several followers is a lie because you didn't have any followers under your original name.

      "I don't think so, but I'm not pretending to have such expertise with the computer, like you do."

      I'm sure you could look at the thread and see for yourself.

      "Remember, I'm just a lowly mechanic. You said so yourself."

      I said nothing of the sort.

      "Let's see ... "everyone" at a fanatical left wing hate-site didn't like the truth-telling right-winger ... go figure."

      Everyone, including conservatives. Your memory is phenomenally inadequate. And again, your labels don't alter reality.

      "But, thanks for admitting you lied."

      I won't "admit" what isn't true. Unless you want me to claim that I'm psychic, the phrase "everyone thought" clearly refers to every opinion that was presented. You can't criticize me for supposedly claiming to know something about Eddie that I can't know, and also for not knowing what any number of silent people are actually thinking.

      "Of course they have no weight to one of the original members of the hate-site mmfa."

      Your labels have no effect, either.

      "My use of and definition of sexist match each other."

      Not the definition you provided. If you didn't create your own meaning for the word, you should be able to show the one that matches your usage.

      Delete
    50. "My provided definition of religion fit the way I used it."

      No, because you tried to apply it to me. Anything that's decided on an individual or group level is beyond your control, so you don't determine which specific individuals or groups follow that "religion". Further, you're trying to skirt the fact that it doesn't match the usage of religion which applies to the article. Since your basis for saying that atheism was a relevant topic was your claim of it as a "religion", now it's clear that it's off-topic. Remember, you don't believe that stamp collecting is a relevant topic, so you can't argue that atheism could be brought up even if you could assert my attitude towards it.

      "If you have a problem with the way M-W defines the words at their site, you shouldn't be continually using them."

      That's really quite hilarious, after you mention your definition of sexist. You seem to have forgotten how you bitched and moaned because Merriam-Webster took "sexist" and provided the definition of "sexism" instead. Of course, I have no problem with them. It's your contortions that are being addressed.

      "The funny thing is you whine about the definition each time you don't like how they define certain words that you can't explain your position for. Like "sexism" being different than "sexist" and how atheism fits within the definition of "religion"."

      It just gets funnier. So, if I don't like how they define certain words that I supposedly can't explain my position for, why are you citing "sexism"? They are the ones that associated the words together, which you whined about. Would you like me to go back and put your own words on display, since you can't remember them?

      "Like when you asked for examples of "income laws" so I bring an ACTUAL law governing what income is and you continue with your whines about how it isn't an example of an income law because it doesn't have the EXACT words "income laws" in it."

      I never said anything like that. I pointed out that it's not an "income law" simply because "income" was in the title of it. Besides, you already kneecapped yourself by insisting that a Google search for religions in Canada was meaningful. If you can simply insist that something is an "income law", and that proves the existence of "income laws", then the mere phrase "Hockey is a religion in Canada" could be claimed to be impenetrable proof as well. When you pretend that you dictate reality, then you establish that behavior as acceptable for others as well.

      "Ooops, I should have read that first because I said something. Now, explain how I am being a hypocrite."

      You didn't show how I was misremembering anything, so the conditional part of that doesn't apply.

      Delete
  2. Here's a source that puts the estimate at $71B. Yes, that's an "atheist" cite, but they in turn cite the source of their data.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

    BTW - you cited ONE church that gave $6M. That's nice. It's quite a leap, hoever, to assume that 1000's of them do as well, or that this type of thing is typical every single year. Do you have a source to cover THAT leap? Also, the church would be free (just like everyone else is) to deduct the cost of money used directly for charitable purposes. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Also - Are you saying that Conservtaives do NOT hate Welfare? Becuase every single one I've ever spoken do has at a minimun expressed a lot of contemtp for it, and they (the Right, Republicans, etc...) certainly politicize the hell out of it. Just sayin'.

    Also? Gays PAY taxes. Just like everyone else does. So... yeah, completely irrelevant to any point you were trying to make.

    Nice to see that some things never change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also noticed that that average urban Church in Philadelphia provides $450K annually in services. There are approx 400K religious institutions in the US, making each of them needing to provide $200K annually in services to equal the number you have such a concern over.
      BTW, what IS your concern? Would you rather the government (in all it's efficiency) be the ones who control which poor/needy get help?

      http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html

      Delete
  3. BTW - same source YOU cited. Funny you didn't find the same info there that I did. That's some crack research you're doing there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how that works out. The internet is an amazing thing, huh?

      Keep your own crack research going ... just sayin

      Delete
  4. Hey Eddie? Got nothing to say about how the Church's provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)? How about you discussing how the Church should be PAID money (by the government) in order to reimburse for the services they provide ... that the GOVERNMENT should already be providing? Then we can talk about tax burdens you are so worried about.

    Nah ... I'll get nothing from you on this subject now that I've shot down this latest anti-religion whine of yours. So much for you being able to handle your own in an argument with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?"

      I'll gladly comment on this, if he's bored with you.

      If churches are paying over 83.5 billion dollars' worth of services, then why are there homeless people, or anyone on food stamps? They must not be spending the money effectively, at best.

      "How about you discussing how the Church should be PAID money (by the government) in order to reimburse for the services they provide ... that the GOVERNMENT should already be providing?"

      This should be fascinating. First, why should an organization that doesn't pay taxes be paid by the government at all? Nobody's asking them to spend the money, but the government is supposed to be responsible for reparations? Second, where are the controls over this? Obviously, when you spend money, you want to have some influence over what it goes towards. What would the government do about church leaders who pay absurd amounts for food, and then expect the government to cover the cost? They can't be fired, even though they're being paid for services rendered. On the same note, where's the parameters for what qualifies as "services"? Are public events which push the church's faith "services" that the government is supposed to pay for? The term would clearly have to be defined if you want to insist that any church "should" get paid. Third, how do you propose that the government cover the costs in question, if that's supposed to be the basis for this sudden financial responsibility? Are you proposing raising taxes, cutting military spending, or what?

      And finally, why do you think that the government should provide anything at all? Don't you believe that everyone's circumstances are their own responsibility, that anyone suffering should have just gotten more education? If you don't think that the government owes the public such support, then you can't possibly say that they should pay anyone else for providing it.

      Delete
    2. "Don't you believe that everyone's circumstances are their own responsibility, that anyone suffering should have just gotten more education?"

      No.

      "If churches are paying over 83.5 billion dollars' worth of services, then why are there homeless people, or anyone on food stamps?"

      I don't know. How much do you think it would cost to eliminate ALL homeless and hungry people in the US? Should religious institutions be the ones who provide services for those who can't afford it? Or should the government do it, also? If so, then why don't they pay more and get all people into homes and fed?

      "I'll gladly comment on this, if he's bored with you."

      I don't think he's bored, I think he simply met his match and refuses to comment on a subject that he knows he has no footing to stand on.
      And, if the best you can do (with your comment) is to say "why are there homeless people, or anyone on food stamps?" is pretty lame and about as intelligent as what Eddie is trying to say.

      BTW; I notice you continue your lies and mis-quotes. "Nobody's asking them to spend the money, but the government is supposed to be responsible for reparations?". I never said the government is "supposed to be responsible" for repayment.

      Delete
    3. "No."

      Then you must support raising the minimum wage, as opposed to your previous stance. If you believe that people are ever the victims of circumstances, then greedy corporations creating low-paying jobs would indisputably qualify as such circumstances. If you believe that people are always responsible for what happens to them, then you can't very well explain why the government is supposed to help.

      "I don't know. How much do you think it would cost to eliminate ALL homeless and hungry people in the US?"

      Did you see the graphic in the article? That's pretty obviously the frame of reference here. If you're disputing the figures there, you should probably provide some to replace them.

      "If so, then why don't they pay more and get all people into homes and fed?"

      That would require cooperation from conservatives. Our system is not a monarchy.

      "And, if the best you can do (with your comment) is to say "why are there homeless people, or anyone on food stamps?" is [sic] pretty lame and about as intelligent as what Eddie is trying to say."

      If you're going to claim that churches provide the same amount of money that "would pay for all the food stamps for every person on welfare, with enough left over to house the entire homeless population" (see the article above), then you do need to explain why there are still food stamps or a homeless population. If they're spending all that money, then they must not be doing it properly. And if they're not, your assertion is false. Which is it?

      By the way, "if" is conditional, meaning the phrase it's used in is followed by something such as "then". You don't follow it with "is". Read it again in case you're not grasping the concept. Also, good job at surrendering your previous accusations by admitting that Eddie and I are two different people.

      "I never said the government is "supposed to be responsible" for repayment."

      You:"How about you discussing how the Church should be PAID money (by the government) in order to reimburse for the services they provide ... that the GOVERNMENT should already be providing?" Note the words "should" and "reimburse". If you're not saying that the government should be obligated to pay churches for charity, then you'd better clarify yourself. Also, I didn't put your quoted phrase in quotes myself, so I didn't claim you used those exact words. So, you'll have to explain what "mis-quote" [sic] you think you're talking about. And also remember that you manufactured a quote and attributed it to me, so you're not in a position to quibble about synonyms. I can't imagine what else you think you have to say besides pretending that "reparations" is somehow inconsistent with "reimburse".

      Delete
    4. "Then you must support raising the minimum wage, as opposed to your previous stance."

      Why? Changing the subject already? That didn't take long.

      "That would require cooperation from conservatives."

      Wow, you're saying that conservatives are the sole entity responsible for all the homelessness and hunger in our nation?

      " If you're not saying that the government should be obligated to pay churches for charity, then you'd better clarify yourself."

      Why would I need to clarify? I didn't say "supposed to", did I?

      Delete
    5. "Changing the subject already?"

      I'm giving you a chance to show how your views are supposed to make sense. It seems sort of odd for you to shift philosophies from one article to another, so you should try to reconcile that. Don't feel pressured, since your inconsistencies can otherwise be assessed at face value.

      "Wow, you're saying that conservatives are the sole entity responsible for all the homelessness and hunger in our nation?"

      Are you saying that Republicans support social safety nets as much as or more than Democrats? If not, you concede my point, and your straw man argument doesn't warrant any serious consideration.

      "Why would I need to clarify? I didn't say "supposed to", did I?"

      There's no significant difference between "should" and "supposed to". Is that really all you had to support your "mis-quote" accusation? You'll have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

      Delete
    6. "Are you saying that Republicans support social safety nets as much as or more than Democrats?"

      That isn't the issue, in this article. If you have something related to THIS article, then bring it. If all you have is re-hashing old stuff, then take it there and not here.

      Delete
    7. "That isn't the issue, in this article."

      Really? The article above, whose title mentions both welfare and charity, has nothing to do with the social safety net?

      Buy a map and then try again.

      Delete
    8. "Really?"

      Really. This article is about the Church being the one providing that safety net and how they don't pay taxes because of that. Not about republicans or conservatives.

      "I'm giving you a chance to show how your views are supposed to make sense. "

      My views are consistent. Your inaccurate assumptions and presentations of my views are wrong.
      BTW, I will not discuss old topics on new articles. If you have something to say from an older article TAKE IT THERE.

      Delete
    9. "This article is about the Church being the one providing that safety net and how they don't pay taxes because of that. Not about republicans or conservatives."

      The very first line of the article "Conservatives HATE the very idea, the very notion of WELFARE." Besides that plain debunking of your lie, you asked a question regarding the political system. Since the answer to that question involved the differing views of the parties, that political stance had to be noted. So, if that's off-topic, then you shouldn't have brought it up. And that's a hell of a big "if" anyway.

      Even further, it's pretty hard to claim that an article which notes the inefficiency of organized religion's handling of poverty is "about" the Church "being the one" that provides a safety net. There's also nothing to support your claim that this imagined provision is the reason for taxing churches. Just the opposite, Eddie makes it clear that churches are not providing substantive help, which is why taxation would enable a more effective plan. And on top of that, the Church clearly can't be "the one" providing anything, since food stamps are mentioned in the graphic. Do you imagine that food stamps are paid for by churches and not the government? I sure hope not.

      "Your inaccurate assumptions and presentations of my views are wrong."

      Prove it. You were quite clear about how minimum wage work was for people who were lazy and stupid, and if they didn't like it they should have gotten more education. I'll gladly paste as many quotes as you like. If you can provide something to show how you meant something else, I suggest you do so. Otherwise, the question remains why you think the government should help the needy when you're so eager to blame the less fortunate for their circumstances.

      "BTW, I will not discuss old topics on new articles."

      If you want to discuss your views as presented here on an old thread, go ahead and post there. I'm guessing that you won't do that, because you simply are trying to make excuses for your wild inconsistencies to be ignored. And you yourself made a reference to another thread in one of your recent responses to Eddie, in case you didn't realize it. Obviously this principle of yours only applies when it involves your accountability. That being the case, I can safely ignore it and expect you to be accountable just like every adult should be.

      Delete
    10. "You were quite clear about how minimum wage work was for people who were lazy and stupid, and if they didn't like it they should have gotten more education. "

      Liar.

      "And you yourself made a reference to another thread in one of your recent responses to Eddie, in case you didn't realize it."

      To EDDIE !! Not to you. If you are Eddie, go ahead and respond. Otherwise, you are a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar. At least Eddie runs away when his lies are exposed. You? You just keep stating and defending your lies and hope you can get away with them un-noticed. But, that IS your typical discussion methodology. I don't expect any more from you other than the lies you offer.
      Example: "You were quite clear about how minimum wage work was for people who were lazy and stupid, and if they didn't like it they should have gotten more education."

      Where did I ever say "lazy" and/or "stupid"? See? You attribute lies (that you make up) to me and insist that I defend or correct those lies. You haven't changed your style of conversation. That's a certainty.

      Delete
    11. "Liar."

      Exhibit A:"I think some people need to quit whining about minimum wage being paid to people who do minimum work. Have you ever seen a McDonalds employee do work? Me neither, so let them keep that minimum wage until they are wise enough to get a REAL JOB."

      Exhibit B:"If someone keeps a minimum wage job so far into their life that they have to whine about their pay, then they should have studied harder in school."

      Exhibit C:"They EARN what they get ... minimum. When they actually start working, then they will get a raise."

      Need more?

      "To EDDIE !! Not to you."

      So the hell what? Either you allow old posts to be brought up, or you don't. Whether it's him or me, your principles should remain constant. Do explain why they aren't.

      "Where did I ever say "lazy" and/or "stupid"?"

      I didn't put the words in quotes, so don't pretend as if those exact words are needed. You keep trying that dishonest tactic, and it's not getting any more effective.

      I notice that you don't try to defend your absurd claims about the subject of the article. I wonder why.

      Delete
    12. Oh, I almost forgot: "Oh, yeah ... you and Eddie are the same person. There aint' [sic] no doubt about that."

      Since you believe that, you must have thought you were bringing up an old article to me anyway. But then you balk when I refer to your past posts. That's incredibly hypocritical. It's not much better if you admit that you were making accusations irresponsibly, but it would at least be a start.

      Delete
    13. "Exhibit A:"

      I don't see the word "lazy" in that quote. You need to bring another one, please. One that has the word "lazy" in it.

      "Exhibit B:"

      I don't see the word "stupid" in that quote. You need to bring a quote that has the word "stupid" in it.

      Which makes you a liar. You can't make shit up and attribute it to me. You say I can't do that for things you don't say, yet you think you can.
      Is that a double standard or hypocrisy?

      Good to see you keep going off topic with your whines about things. Unless you think this article is about minimum wage.

      Delete
    14. "You need to bring another one, please."

      And "You need to bring a quote that has the word "stupid" in it."

      No, I don't. Would you like me to dig up some of your more creative interpretations of my words in order to show how you don't abide by that standard on your own? It would be quite simple to do.

      "You can't make shit up and attribute it to me."

      I don't see "lazy" or "stupid" in quotes in my post above. What gave you the idea that I said you used those exact words? If you assumed that, that's your problem. Otherwise, show what you're basing your demands on.

      Besides that, I could claim that you used those exact words, and then insist that you re-post everything on the thread to prove that you didn't. That was your standard earlier, remember? You claimed that was the only way for me to prove that I didn't post the quote you attributed to me. So, why doesn't that standard apply to you? Now that you want to claim that I said you used specific words, suddenly it's my responsibility to show where you did so. Seriously, make a decision. Either the onus is on me here, which would mean you're a liar since you never showed the source of the quote you attributed to me, or it's on you, in which case you can't call me a liar until you prove it. I look forward to your tantrum.

      "You say I can't do that for things you don't say, yet you think you can."

      No, I certainly can't attribute a quote to you that you didn't post. Now, find where I put quotes around the words you're looking for, and you'll have a point. I sincerely wish you the best of luck at that.

      "Unless you think this article is about minimum wage."

      I'm not asking you to say anything about the minimum wage. I'm asking you about your shift in attitude regarding responsibility for personal circumstances. If you don't stupidly deny what you said there, then I don't need to provide quotes. If that were the case, I'd simply be referring to your past behavior.

      And I challenge you to explain what would be wrong with that. Be specific. Because your very first response to me included this: "BTW; I notice you continue your lies and mis-quotes [sic]." Continued from where, exactly? It would seem that you're referencing something from another article, or else it wouldn't be "continued". So, if you have no problem with going beyond the scope of this specific thread, then I can safely say that you can't have a problem with me doing the same. I'm quite eager to see how you're going to disagree with that.

      Delete
    15. " I'm asking you about your shift in attitude regarding responsibility for personal circumstances."

      I have no shift in attitude.

      Delete
    16. "I have no shift in attitude."

      Then why do workers deserve whatever garbage pay they're given, due to their lack of drive and education, while at the same time the government is supposed to support people in even worse circumstances? If people aren't "wise enough" to prevent homelessness, then why do you care?

      It's very easy for you to deny the inconsistency, but you seem scared of providing an actual explanation for some reason. If you have actual principles, it's not at all difficult.

      Delete
    17. Then why do workers deserve .... blah blah blah

      What do I care about a question, like that, during this discussion. Take that question where it belongs.

      Delete
    18. "Take that question where it belongs."

      It belongs here, because this is where you're saying that the government is supposed to help people. I couldn't have very well asked you why you changed your views before it happened.

      See, since you don't have a consistent philosophy, it seems that you're just being contrary for the sake of it. You're not arguing from principle, so that's relevant to your credibility. And you've never held yourself to any standard of taking questions where they supposedly belong, so you're not going to enforce that standard on anyone else. Any questions?

      Delete
    19. Any questions?

      Not for a proven, unrepentant, habitual liar. I'll offer questions to anyone else except proven, unrepentant, habitual liars.

      Delete
    20. It seems to me that someone who can't even account for their change of philosophy doesn't have grounds to comment on "liars". But since my statements stand on their own merits, you're not allowed to judge them anyway. Sorry.

      Delete
    21. But since my statements stand on their own merits, you're not allowed to judge them anyway. Sorry.

      Since I haven't changed my philosophy, you are in the wrong. And, liars have little merit. So, your statements standing on their own merit doesn't really mean too much. Sorry

      Delete
    22. "Since I haven't changed my philosophy, you are in the wrong."

      So you say. But since you don't seem able to expand on your views, you're only providing an empty assertion.

      "And, liars have little merit."

      Which is why your assertion is worthless. As is your assessment of my character. Your lies have been proven, while you rely on conflation to "prove" any such thing against me. Feel free to test me on that.

      "So, your statements standing on their own merit doesn't really mean too much. Sorry"

      So, your assurance that you're pure of heart is supposed to be the foundation for the "merit" of your comments? That would obviously work for anyone, so you don't get to challenge me on that.

      Or, your comments don't have immunity, because you manufactured a quote and attributed it to me, as well as willfully misrepresenting me on these recent threads.

      See how that works? If you think that you can merely insist that you have credibility, then you allow that for everyone else. If you think that you can judge me, then you're accountable for what you say as well. Unless you have such a huge ego that you think you can dictate reality and can impose rules on other people without following them yourself. But you'll probably just assert that you don't have a huge ego, because you think your assertions mean something all by themselves. Right?

      Besides all that, you can't use "liar" as an excuse, because you can't determine such a thing without evaluating my statements. And you can't evaluate my statements because they stand on their own merit. Any comments you have would just be you crying, nothing more.

      This really isn't going well for you at all, in case you didn't notice by now.

      Delete
    23. Feel free to test me on that.

      Here's one: "You didn't bring an actual total, you were merely assuming that what one church has given is what every church has given."

      I never made that assumption. I clearly said what I meant and clarified your error as soon as you said it. But, that doesn't change the fact that you said it. Then you defended that lie even after I pointed out that I said: "There are approx 400K religious institutions in the US, making each of them needing to provide $200K annually in services to equal the number you have such a concern over.". ('you' being Eddie in that statement). While you ignored the FACT that I used the one Church (in Philly) as an example, not as a trend.
      Which makes you a proven liar ... again.


      Or, your comments don't have immunity, because you manufactured a quote and attributed it to me, as well as willfully misrepresenting me on these recent threads.

      Haven't you been saying I manufactured ONE comment by you? Now, you are saying there are more? You couldn't even prove ONE comment, how you going to prove more?


      If you think that you can merely insist that you have credibility, then you allow that for everyone else.

      Perhaps you can point out where I am claiming any credibility. See how that works? I make a statement, then you make shit up and attribute it to me. WHERE did I make any such claim of credibility while denying anyone else the same?

      Delete
    24. "I never made that assumption. I clearly said what I meant and clarified your error as soon as you said it."

      No, you didn't. I cited you saying this: "One simple example and the Church gives $6 million to the community. Let's see ... how many Church's [sic] are there? Hmmm ... 6 million times thousands equals ... perhaps what you whine about the Church NOT paying." You never addressed that. Your "$200K" comment isn't what I was referring to, so it doesn't matter if you repeated it so that it was "clarified".

      "Now, you are saying there are more?"

      No, I didn't say there were more. Are you assuming that "misrepresenting" automatically means "manufactured a quote"? That's quite a leap on your part.

      "You couldn't even prove ONE comment, how you going to prove more?"

      It was never my job to prove the negative. You claimed I posted the phrase that you put in quotes, and when challenged, you couldn't show where you got it from. You've also established that you know that the burden of proof wasn't on me, by saying this: "You need to bring a quote that has the word "stupid" in it." If you're claiming that I made something up and attributed it to you, why did you ask me to prove that you really said it?

      Even better: "Which makes you a liar." So, you don't see the exact wording that I used (without quotes, of course) in what you said, so you declare "liar". That means that when you posted a quote that you claimed came from me, and you didn't bring the source, you fit the parameters that you used to condemn me. You set the standard for the "liar" label, and pinned it on yourself in the process. Game...set...match.

      "Perhaps you can point out where I am claiming any credibility."

      So, you can say that my use of "on their own merits" doesn't mean much because of your baseless accusations about my credibility, but you felt comfortable asserting the "merits" of your statements? If you aren't asserting credibility for yourself, then obviously you couldn't possibly suggest that your own statements had any inherent value in the first place. If your opinion has any bearing on the value of my words, then the only way your words can stand on their own is to put yourself on a pedestal above the opinions of others. It also doesn't make any sense for you to make declarations about the credibility of others if you don't have it yourself. In fact, you'll have to explain how you thought you could make the "doesn't really mean too much" comment above if you want to stand by your current claim.

      Actually, let's see you back it up. If you're even allowing for the possibility of being accidentally wrong about something, cite one specific point on either of these threads that you don't have confidence in. If you can't do that, then you obviously would be claiming that everything you've said is true.

      Delete
    25. So, you can say that my use of "on their own merits" doesn't mean much because of your baseless accusations about my credibility, but you felt comfortable asserting the "merits" of your statements?

      No, I'm saying I have confidence in what I say, but no confidence in what you say.


      No, you didn't. I cited you saying this: blah blah blah

      Did you see the first couple words? ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE. Now, do some simple reasoning. One Church gives millions to the community? There are approximately 400,000 religious institutions in the US. Do you REALLY think there is only ONE Church that gives millions to the community? Even if just 1/2 a percent of all those religious institutions gives that much, there would be 2000 of them doing it.

      Do I have tax forms to prove what I say? Hell no, I don't need them to succeed in this discussion on how much Church's pay in taxes.

      Did you even go to the link I provided? Here, I'll give it to you again.
      http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html

      Now go down to the graph of attendance and percentage of Church's that have the given attendance.

      1,000-1,999 6,000 8 million 2%

      Do you see those numbers and the appropriate category? 6000 Church's have weekly attendance between 1000 and 1999. If each gave just $10 a week it would add up to $520K and $1,039,480 annually per Church. That's at JUST $10 a week. There are 1100 Church's that have almost 10 times that attendance. So, YES, it is easy to guess that there are thousands of Churches providing millions in services to the community annually. And that's just Protestant and Christian Churches in the US. I'm not even factoring in the rest of the religious institutions in the US.

      Your welcome.


      Delete
    26. "No, I'm saying I have confidence in what I say, but no confidence in what you say."

      That's entirely consistent with what I said. And if you claim that you have confidence in what you say, then you're asserting your credibility. I knew that I wouldn't even need to prove it, because you would do it on your own.

      "ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE. Now, do some simple reasoning. One Church gives millions to the community? There are approximately 400,000 religious institutions in the US. Do you REALLY think there is only ONE Church that gives millions to the community? Even if just 1/2 a percent of all those religious institutions gives that much, there would be 2000 of them doing it."

      So your defense for "6 million times thousands equals ..." is to theorize that thousands of churches are providing 6 million dollars each. Wow. Thanks for cementing your lack of an actual total, which was the point at hand.

      Now, regarding your toddler-like attempts at logic, one example does not suggest a significant number of others like it. For instance, your reasoning would lead one to view the Spruce Goose and theorize that there are thousands of monstrously large planes which were built by eccentric millionaires. The very fact that out of so many religious institutions you only find one or two notable amounts for services suggests that those are the exceptional ones, not anything close to the norm. If there were really thousands, why would that "ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE" stand out to you?

      "Hell no, I don't need them to succeed in this discussion on how much Church's [sic] pay in taxes."

      You need them to assert that churches pay more than a specified amount, as you have. Wild assumptions aren't a winning argument.

      "Do you see those numbers and the appropriate category? 6000 Church's have weekly attendance between 1000 and 1999. If each gave just $10 a week it would add up to $520K and $1,039,480 annually per Church. That's at JUST $10 a week."

      I'm going to need some aspirin from laughing at you this hard. The larger the audience, the more likely that you're talking about a densely populated area. That would be like a city. With me so far? Urban areas tend to have much lower average incomes than suburban or rural areas. Now, do some simple reasoning. Do you really think that the poorer elements of the population are going to pay anywhere near $520 per year per person?

      Even more obviously, how the hell do you make the transition from income to spending? It doesn't matter one damn bit if you could prove that people donate trillions of dollars to churches. That has nothing to do with what the churches do with their money. By the way, did you know that Wal-Mart is one of the highest-paying employers? They have to be, because they make so much money! Just kidding, of course, but a very obvious way of pointing out how hilariously stupid your reasoning is.

      Oh, you should also realize that none of what you said disputed the fact that I wasn't talking about your "$200K" comment, which was your basis for calling me a liar. Yet again, you prove that your assertions are worthless.

      Delete
    27. And if you claim that you have confidence in what you say, then you're asserting your credibility.

      Well, duhh, IMHO I have more credibility than you do. Is that so hard to understand that you have to keep crying about credibility?


      Thanks for cementing your lack of an actual total, which was the point at hand.

      You're welcome (I already said). Besides, how do they come up with the total of taxes owed?? Is that another THEORETICAL number? .... ASSUMING how much is given?? Good for you for proving you have no proof of how much taxes the Church should owe. I brought mine, bring yours. Unless you're scared. Don't forget those tax forms (that you demand of me). Or you proof is as worthless as mine (IYHO).


      Now, regarding your toddler-like attempts at logic, one example does not suggest a significant number of others like it.

      Fully explain why not. I have given a possible logical explanation for that possibility and you deny it. Bring some explanation why that it isn't possible. I brought a theory where it is fully possible, bring your theory.


      For instance, your reasoning would lead one to view the Spruce Goose and theorize that there are thousands of monstrously large planes which were built by eccentric millionaires.

      Now, I don't know if the owners are "eccentric", but there ARE thousands of "monstrous airplanes" built larger than the spruce goose. What's your point again? Ah ha ha ha.


      You need them to assert that churches pay more than a specified amount, as you have.

      No I don't. I don't have to exactly prove an EXAMPLE and/or THEORY. I only have to provide viable existence. Which I did.


      Urban areas tend to have much lower average incomes than suburban or rural areas.

      Well, then, you'll notice, from my other link, that the average "URBAN Philadelphia" Church gives $450K back to the community. game, set, match. Ah ha ha ha


      Do you really think that the poorer elements of the population are going to pay anywhere near $520 per year per person?

      Are you talking about you atheists? Or are you talking about religious people? First: no (I think they are cheap). Second: yes. Are you kidding me? You don't give at LEAST $10 back to your community each week? Wow, no wonder so many people have a negative impression of atheists.


      Even more obviously, how the hell do you make the transition from income to spending?

      You do have a real problem with kindness, huh? Of course a Church can't spend what it doesn't have, but it will spend what it does have. Are you really so blind to that fact??


      By the way, did you know that Wal-Mart is one of the highest-paying employers?

      Lose another discussion, so you feel changing the subject will help you? Good for you. I'm proud of your expertise in conversational discussion.


      Oh, you should also realize that none of what you said disputed the fact that I wasn't talking about your "$200K" comment, which was your basis for calling me a liar.

      Yes, I know. That's why I had to fully explain that last part for you. You're not very good at following along, so I had to hold your hand to keep you from getting scared. Ah ha ha ha

      Delete
    28. "Is that so hard to understand that you have to keep crying about credibility?"

      You asked where you claimed to have credibility. If you didn't want that demonstrated, you shouldn't have asked.

      "Is that another THEORETICAL number? .... ASSUMING how much is given??"

      I expect it's estimated based on broader information, as opposed to extrapolating from one or two specific churches.

      "Good for you for proving you have no proof of how much taxes the Church should owe. I brought mine, bring yours."

      Your assumptions aren't evidence.

      "Don't forget those tax forms (that you demand of me)."

      You're the one claiming that chuches give billions of dollars in services. I'm not, so why would I need to provide any such thing?

      "Fully explain why not."

      What part of the previous argument did you not grasp?

      "Bring some explanation why that it isn't possible."

      Wait, if it's possible? You claimed that churches contribute at least a certain amount of money, not that it could be true. It's possible that churches are conspiring to overthrow the government, but I'm pretty damn sure that you would not accept an assertion that it's actually happening based on that alone.

      "Now, I don't know if the owners are "eccentric", but there ARE thousands of "monstrous airplanes" built larger than the spruce goose."

      Then they don't fit the example. Why did you bother to type that out?

      "I don't have to exactly prove an EXAMPLE and/or THEORY."

      When you say something is happening, you're not forwarding an example or theory. For instance:"Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?" Another, from your immediately previous post: "Hell no, I don't need them to succeed in this discussion on how much Church's [sic] pay in taxes." I don't see "could", "might", or anything else to suggest you're talking about a theory. It's not even clear why you would be doing that, because the graphic in Eddie's post shows that churches could pay enough to cover food stamps and housing. Why would you try to argue something that doesn't affect his point in the slightest?

      Delete
    29. "Well, then, you'll notice, from my other link, that the average "URBAN Philadelphia" Church gives $450K back to the community."

      Which is less than your low estimate for the 6000 churches that you used to make your argument. How unsurprising that you didn't notice that.

      "Are you talking about you atheists? Or are you talking about religious people?"

      Since we're talking about church attendees, your question doesn't make any sense.

      "You do have a real problem with kindness, huh? Of course a Church can't spend what it doesn't have, but it will spend what it does have."

      How much of what it has, and how do you think you can generalize about that at all? I have no problem with kindness, I have a problem with your assumptions. That's like being told that you should just leave your car unlocked with the keys on the seat, because otherwise you have a real lack of faith in humanity. Obviously, there's a major difference between hoping for people to do the right thing and expecting it.

      "Lose another discussion, so you feel changing the subject will help you?"

      Were you really tempted to start a conversation about Wal-Mart based on a joke? I have no reason to expect that, so you can't suggest that I was trying to change the subject. Feel free to try to convince me that you're that easily distracted, and I'll remember to explain twice that something is merely used as an example in the future.

      "That's why I had to fully explain that last part for you."

      If you know that you didn't dispute what I said, then everything else is irrelevant to that. Your attempts at jabs at getting more erratic with every post. But your "following along" comment was amusing, given your apparent belief that your link on church attendance might have something to do with atheists.

      Delete
    30. You asked where you claimed to have credibility.

      Nice cropping job. You just seemed to ignore the first part: "Well, duhh, IMHO I have more credibility than you do."


      I expect it's estimated based on broader information,

      But you don't know? And, "estimated"? Ummm, you certainly have no clue what is being discussed, huh? Until you find out, then you have nothing to defend your position that religious institutions (in the US) should be paying taxes.
      Although, let me help you finish answering my question: YES, you are using a theoretical and/or assumed number to decide how much Church's in the US should be paying in taxes. Thanks for skirting that issue.


      Your assumptions aren't evidence.

      And, your lack of ANY evidence gives you NO credibility towards this discussion. You should stop now while you're way behind.


      You're the one claiming that chuches give billions of dollars in services.

      And this article is claiming they should owe billions of dollars in taxes. Where is ANY evidence of that claim?


      You claimed that churches contribute at least a certain amount of money, not that it could be true.

      Another lie by you. I did not make that claim. Show where I made that claim as fact. Your lies are adding up, and that's just in this article.


      Then they don't fit the example.

      Why not? Just because "I" don't know? Facts are still facts if "I" don't know them. Bring something that shows they are ALL non-eccentric owners.


      It's not even clear why you would be doing that, because the graphic in Eddie's post shows that churches could pay enough to cover food stamps and housing.

      Oh, so your standard is that if I draw a cartoon showing just the opposite it would be true? That's a good standard you're using there. Because I see NO facts backing up that cartoon. Do you?


      Why would you try to argue something that doesn't affect his point in the slightest?

      Because I think he is wrong. And, I brought examples and evidence that could argue my point in my favor. He brought nothing. You brought nothing. The cartoon brought nothing. Some facts are better than no facts in all situations.


      How unsurprising that you didn't notice that.

      How surprising is it that there are approximately 400,000 religious institutions that give to the community. Not JUST 6,000. Let's see ... 400,000 is slightly MORE than 6,000. Some give more, some give less. I brought some as examples. Do you have anything that shows they give less or none? Nah, I didn't think so. How unsurprising.


      Since we're talking about church attendees, your question doesn't make any sense.

      Maybe not, but it sure expresses how much I think atheists give to the community.


      Your attempts at jabs at (sic) getting more erratic with every post.

      Ah ha ha ha.

      Delete
    31. "Nice cropping job. You just seemed to ignore the first part: "Well, duhh, IMHO I have more credibility than you do.""

      What is that supposed to change? You acted as if I had no reason to be talking about credibility, when you asked where you had claimed to have credibility. You repeating your claim of it not only doesn't affect that argument, it proves my previous point. So why would you have wanted me to include it?

      "But you don't know? And, "estimated"? Ummm, you certainly have no clue what is being discussed, huh?"

      Your entire argument is pure speculation. If there are supposed to be to-the-penny totals of church income, why don't you know?

      "Until you find out, then you have nothing to defend your position that religious institutions (in the US) should be paying taxes."

      Of course I do, because people need help and private charity clearly isn't doing the job. Do you have a problem with kindness?

      "And, your lack of ANY evidence gives you NO credibility towards this discussion."

      You: "Hell no, I don't need them to succeed in this discussion on how much Church's [sic] pay in taxes." Funny how you don't need evidence in order to "succeed", but I supposedly do when pointing out that you have no evidence. The burden is on you, since you're the one making the claim.

      "And this article is claiming they should owe billions of dollars in taxes. Where is ANY evidence of that claim?"

      That's not a question for me, since I didn't write the article. Or, if you have evidence to the contrary, show it. Is your complaint about that supposed to justify your own lack of evidence?

      "Another lie by you. I did not make that claim."

      You: "Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?" What is "that" tax amount, if it's not a "certain amount"? You had to be referring to something specific, otherwise you couldn't make the claim.

      "Why not? Just because "I" don't know?"

      Yes, you can't say that something matches an example if you don't know the pertinent details. What makes you think otherwise?

      "Bring something that shows they are ALL non-eccentric owners."

      I didn't claim that there was never a single other instance. The point is that you can't assume any amounts or percentages from an isolated example.

      "Oh, so your standard is that if I draw a cartoon showing just the opposite it would be true?"

      No, my standard is that if you're going to dispute someone's point, you need to bring something that counters it. Arguing that churches might possibly take in that much money doesn't do that at all.

      Delete
    32. "Because I think he is wrong."

      So that's a reason for you to make an irrelevant argument?

      "And, I brought examples and evidence that could argue my point in my favor."

      They "could", if you make enough assumptions.

      "How surprising is it that there are approximately 400,000 religious institutions that give to the community. Not JUST 6,000."

      Who says they all give to the community?

      "Do you have anything that shows they give less or none? Nah, I didn't think so. How unsurprising."

      Do you think that your assumptions are evidence? It appears so. You have no idea what they give, in what form, and whether the help is being effectively provided or not. So, you simply can't say that they provide enough services to cover the tax amount that Eddie is concerned about. Welcome to the discussion.

      "Maybe not, but it sure expresses how much I think atheists give to the community."

      Are you trying to change the subject? Or do you think your pathological hatred is something to brag about? Your knee-jerk mention of atheists discredits your stated opinion entirely.

      "Ah ha ha ha."

      Yes, I removed part of that and left the wrong word. It should be "are". Meanwhile, it's "[sic]", using brackets. Not parentheses. Also, when you quote people, put their words within quotation marks. That's incredibly basic knowledge, so it's not clear if you're really that lazy or your memory is slipping drastically.

      Delete
    33. Your entire argument is pure speculation. If there are supposed to be to-the-penny totals of church income, why don't you know?

      So is Eddie's cartoon. Your point being what??
      Who ever mentioned anything about "to-the-penny totals"? If that's your criteria, then Eddie should have brought something more than a cartoon to prove (or show) his point. He guess's, I guess ... why do you keep crying about exact totals?


      Of course I do, because people need help and private charity clearly isn't doing the job

      And, obviously, my point is that government isn't doing the job either, so why would taxing an entity that IS doing something going to help? After all, it IS the JOB of the government to provide that kind of help to it's citizens, not private charity. And clearly, if the government can't do it, then someone has to. How much do you help the poor and/or needy?


      The burden is on you, since you're the one making the claim.

      No, the burden is on Eddie, he's the one who makes the initial claim of taxes owed. Bring some proof of that. Something besides a cartoon.


      That's not a question for me, since I didn't write the article.

      That's right. So, what are you commenting on, then? The inaccurate claims or the inaccurate rebuttal?


      Yes, you can't say that something matches an example if you don't know the pertinent details.

      I don't know how gravity works because I lack the knowledge of pertinent details. Does that mean there is no such thing as gravity? Same is true for space-craft and oceans tides. Are those not true, also, because I don't know the pertinent details?


      I didn't claim that there was never a single other instance.

      Then I am correct and you are wrong. Thanks for admitting that.



      No, my standard is that if you're going to dispute someone's point, you need to bring something that counters it.

      I did that with my links. Arguing that Church's might possibly owe billions is taxes is not different than my argument. Again, what's your fucking point?


      So that's a reason for you to make an irrelevant argument?

      I haven't made an irrelevant argument. Church income and Church expenses are relevant to each other. Any semi-intelligent person would know that. But I have to take into consideration of WHO I am discussing with.


      They "could", if you make enough assumptions.

      Eddie is using a cartoon to make his point. How is that ANY different?


      Who says they all give to the community?

      Not me. What's your point?


      So, you simply can't say that they provide enough services to cover the tax amount that Eddie is concerned about.

      And there is evidence of taxes owed WHERE???


      Are you trying to change the subject?

      Yes, because you haven't the intelligence to discuss about the topic at hand. I'm hoping you know a little about atheism. But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do.


      Also, when you quote people, put their words within quotation marks.

      What makes you think I'm quoting you? I am typing in words and replying to them. If those words are similar to what you say, I am not responsible for that. It is on you for continually responding to non-quotes that you think I'm making.

      Delete
    34. "So is Eddie's cartoon. Your point being what??"

      That you're demanding evidence you should already have to make your own argument.

      "He guess's, I guess ... why do you keep crying about exact totals?"

      Why did you ask me for tax forms, if you don't care about exact totals?

      "And, obviously, my point is that government isn't doing the job either, so why would taxing an entity that IS doing something going to help?"

      Because injecting more money into a national system is more effective than localized outlets run by unaccountable entities. That was easy.

      "No, the burden is on Eddie, he's the one who makes the initial claim of taxes owed."

      No, you claimed that churches pay that much in services. You have to support that.

      "That's right. So, what are you commenting on, then?"

      Your baseless assertion.

      "I don't know how gravity works because I lack the knowledge of pertinent details. Does that mean there is no such thing as gravity?"

      What examples would you be trying to match with those things?

      "Then I am correct and you are wrong."

      No, your standard was invalid. Since I never proclaimed that there couldn't be one similar instance, you can't demand proof that there isn't one. You have to address my actual argument, not the one you wish I had made.

      "I did that with my links."

      How so?

      "I haven't made an irrelevant argument."

      Then you shouldn't have admitted to doing so.

      "Church income and Church expenses are relevant to each other."

      How are they "relevant" to each other? One doesn't dictate the other, so you can't make your assumptions.

      "Eddie is using a cartoon to make his point."

      Take it up with him. How would that justify anything for you?

      "Not me."

      Then don't cite the number as if it's meaningful.

      "And there is evidence of taxes owed WHERE???"

      Irrelevant. That's the number you referred to, so if you don't believe it you shouldn't have asserted that the amount was being provided.

      "But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do."

      You just asserted that as a fact, so I guess I don't need to.

      "What makes you think I'm quoting you? I am typing in words and replying to them. If those words are similar to what you say, I am not responsible for that.'

      So you're talking to voices in your head, or what? That's a brilliant defense. Note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    35. That you're demanding evidence you should already have to make your own argument.

      I brought that evidence. It doesn't make my claim or his claim any more credible. I'm just pointing out that Church's give a lot to the community.


      Why did you ask me for tax forms, if you don't care about exact totals?

      Um, because you did first?


      Because injecting more money into a national system is more effective than localized outlets run by unaccountable entities.

      Who says they are "unaccountable entities"?


      No, you claimed that churches pay that much in services. You have to support that.

      I have supported that, several times.


      What examples would you be trying to match with those things?

      I think I already did that too. Reading comprehension 101 : "Same is true for space-craft and oceans tides."


      Take it up with him.

      I did. Why are you commenting if you don't want me to ask you that question?


      Irrelevant.

      And, you think you're the intelligent one. Wow.



      You just asserted that as a fact, so I guess I don't need to.

      Well then, if you agree, then there are at least 2 people who think atheists don't give to the community as I said.


      Note the sarcasm.

      Got caught in your own trap? Brilliant response.

      Delete
    36. "I brought that evidence."

      No, you didn't.

      "Um, because you did first?"

      That couldn't possibly change your attitude. If you really don't think that concrete numbers are important, then you don't ask for them.

      "Who says they are "unaccountable entities"?"

      I do. What's your argument?

      "I have supported that, several times."

      You: "And, I brought examples and evidence that could argue my point in my favor."
      Me: "They "could", if you make enough assumptions."
      You: "Eddie is using a cartoon to make his point. How is that ANY different?"
      So, which is it? Have you substantiated your claim, or are you admitting that you're doing the same thing as Eddie while plainly saying that Eddie never proved his point? You also said that you "guess", just as Eddie does.

      "I think I already did that too. Reading comprehension 101 : "Same is true for space-craft and oceans tides.""

      I included those in my response. Reading comprehension 101 would teach you that "those" is plural. Also, you weren't matching gravity with either of those things, you used them as two other examples of things that you don't understand. Again, what would you be trying to match with those? Since I stated details about the Spruce Goose, you have to actually know those details if you want to claim that another example is similar. If you're talking about things you don't know, then maybe you could compare the things that you listed to each other. But since that's not the case, your argument doesn't make any sense. And I'd also discourage you from talking about things you nothing about, just so you don't starve to death in the process.

      "I did. Why are you commenting if you don't want me to ask you that question?"

      So in order to comment here, I have to answer for someone else? Do explain.

      "And, you think you're the intelligent one."

      Which is repeatedly proven as you refuse to address arguments. And you also display your stupidity when you think that questioning Eddie's number has anything to do with your claim of fact that churches provide that amount in services. The number you referred to at that time stays constant. It doesn't decrease, no matter what happens afterwards.

      "Well then, if you agree, then there are at least 2 people who think atheists don't give to the community as I said."

      I don't agree, and I don't care. But, since you didn't realize what you said, I'll explain it for you. Read it again: "I'm hoping you know a little about atheism. But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do." So, if I knew about atheism, I would be able to show that atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do. Even better, just a little knowledge would allow me to show that, so it's obviously a widely-known and well-established fact.

      "Got caught in your own trap?"

      I doubt it, but it's not clear what answer you're expecting when you don't explain what "trap" you're even referring to.

      Delete
    37. No, you didn't.

      Yes, here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1395836595691#c4297405938119841829
      and here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1395869963373#c1046096978564864223


      I do. What's your argument?

      That you're not the designator of accountable entities. I would need an accurate source to make an informed judgement of your claim. Otherwise, it's just opinion. IMHO a not very credible opinion.


      So in order to comment here, I have to answer for someone else?

      You would need to ask Eddie the rules governing who comments here, not me.


      And you also display your stupidity when you think that questioning Eddie's number has anything to do with your claim of fact that churches provide that amount in services.

      I haven't made that "claim of fact". I've made that deduction, but not claim of fact. Sorry, you're lying again.


      I don't agree, and I don't care.

      Of course you don't care. That's what I've said about atheists. But, I'm afraid you did agree.

      Delete
    38. "Yes, here:"

      Your isolated examples don't prove anything, because you admittedly made guesses based off of them.

      "That you're not the designator of accountable entities."

      That's not a valid argument. I didn't claim to be a "designator", so that's not a basis for disagreement. I'll give you some training wheels, to help you out: How would those in charge of church charity possibly be accountable?

      "You would need to ask Eddie the rules governing who comments here, not me."

      No, because you asked why I was commenting if I didn't want you to ask me a question about someone else. I'm talking about your standard, not the site's rules.

      "Of course you don't care. That's what I've said about atheists."

      That we don't care about your irrelevant tangents? An odd sort of generalization, but not surprising.

      "I've made that deduction, but not claim of fact"."

      Why would you expect anyone to comment on your "deduction"? It must take a hell of an ego for you to prop up your guesswork as if it was an airtight argument. Let's see it again: "Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?" I guess you simply forgot to add some words, right? You must have meant to say "Got nothing to say about my assumption that the churches provide enough services..." Because you wouldn't say something as if it were established fact and then call it a "deduction" like a dishonest little weasel, because you claim to be credible. And credible people may make errors, but they don't behave like that. Given that deductive process, I'll take it for granted that you're retracting your original phrasing.

      "But, I'm afraid you did agree."

      With "atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do."? Like I said, I don't care, but I find it odd that you're telling me what I said (your specialty?) in order to argue that religious people aren't any more charitable than atheists. If you feel that strongly about it, I won't dispute the claim.

      Delete
    39. No, because you asked why I was commenting if I didn't want you to ask me a question about someone else. I'm talking about your standard, not the site's rules.

      Are you crying again?


      That we don't care about your irrelevant tangents?

      You never mentioned "irrelevant tangents". You simply said you don't care. Changing the criteria in the middle of the conversation isn't helping your cause.


      Why would you expect anyone to comment on your "deduction"?

      At least you're not denying that I caught you in a lie again. Because I never brought anything as a "claim of fact". You said I did. You lied.


      Your isolated examples don't prove anything, because you admittedly made guesses based off of them.

      They don't have to "prove" anything. I said I brought some examples that support my position. And, they do.


      That's not a valid argument.

      It's all you're going to get. It's factual and to the point.


      No, because you asked why I was commenting if I didn't want you to ask me a question about someone else.

      That's right, I asked why are you commenting. You changed the criteria to "here", not me. As per you usual dishonest tactics.


      Why would you expect anyone to comment on your "deduction"?

      Because that's what this site is for: commenting/arguing. As per Eddie's criteria: "Progessive Blogger and regular MediaMatters poster. Come on in, let's argue! ". You're really not very good at this, are you?



      With "atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do."?

      Is that another conveniently cropped quote to make it look like I said something different? Wow, you're pulling out all the strings now.

      Delete
    40. "Are you crying again?"

      No, I corrected you. Is that a problem?

      "You never mentioned "irrelevant tangents"."

      I didn't need to, because I already told you that atheists have nothing to do with church attendance. You didn't even dispute that, so you should have been following along already.

      "At least you're not denying that I caught you in a lie again."

      Even the quote you provided doesn't support that claim. I put "deduction" in quotes because I'm disputing it. Your original wording was clear in asserting the amount of church charity provided as a matter of fact, no matter how much you try to dance around it now.

      "They don't have to "prove" anything. I said I brought some examples that support my position."

      Your position is that churches contributed a specific amount of money in services. Since that's not even slightly subjective, "support" would mean proof of the number you were referring to.

      "It's all you're going to get. It's factual and to the point."

      I don't expect anything more, because you never had an argument to make.

      "That's right, I asked why are you commenting. You changed the criteria to "here", not me."

      As opposed to where? You asked why I was commenting if I didn't want to be asked about Eddie's graphic. How you came to think that's changing anything to "here" should be a funny story.

      "Because that's what this site is for: commenting/arguing."

      That's something for you to bear in mind when you talk about "crying". More importantly, the general purpose of the site doesn't apply to the specific question that you were asked. For an incredibly obvious comparison, you said that you wouldn't discuss old topics on new articles. Since you set your own rules for what comments are appropriate and what comments are not, then clearly other people can't be expected to comment on your "deduction", since they are allowed to set reasonable standards.

      By the way, your last two quotes (without quotation marks) were repeats from earlier in your post.

      "Is that another conveniently cropped quote to make it look like I said something different?"

      It can't be "another", to start, because you never demonstrated one previously. But no, that's what would be agreed with. The whole sentence (as I posted already, destroying your claim of dishonesty all by itself): "But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do." The part after "show" would be the fact you were citing, and that fact quite plainly reads as "atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do". You may have imagined that you said something else, but you were wrong.

      Delete
    41. Your original wording was clear in asserting the amount of church charity provided as a matter of fact, no matter how much you try to dance around it now.

      You think so? Bring my original wording and fully explain how I expressed as it "matter of fact". Or just leave this blank and continue crying, like you have been doing.


      Your position is that churches contributed a specific amount of money in services.

      You think so? Bring that "specific amount" that you say is my position.


      I don't expect anything more ...

      That's right, I bring only facts. You, on the other hand, bring nothing.


      "But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do."

      There you go. You got the quote entirely right, this time. So you admit you took it out of context and cropped it the last time you used that quote. Because it changes the entire meaning of what I said.
      You haven't been able to "show" it because you can't find any proof that atheists give on the same scale that religious institutions give to the community. I found proof for my claim. Again ... you bring NOTHING but crying.

      Delete
    42. "Bring my original wording and fully explain how I expressed as it "matter of fact"."

      Again? Sure: "Got nothing to say about how the Church's [sic] provide enough services to fully pay that tax amount (you have such a concern over)?" You say that they provide "that tax amount" in services. There isn't a single modifier or qualifier to suggest that you're talking about guesswork.

      "Bring that "specific amount" that you say is my position."

      You don't know what amount you said that churches provide in services?

      "You got the quote entirely right, this time."

      I posted it previously as well. You forgot that already, it seems.

      "So you admit you took it out of context and cropped it the last time you used that quote."

      Wrong. I posted the part that you were referencing. The other part wasn't what you said I was agreeing with. And since I had already posted the entire sentence, obviously I have no nefarious motive to do otherwise.

      "Because it changes the entire meaning of what I said."

      No, it does not. The "But, apparently, you don't" part connects the two sentences. You can't deny that. Since you hinged the phrase about equal contributions on knowledge, you made that idea a matter of accepted truth.

      Here, I'll break it down for you further (All based on your quotes):
      1)You hope that I know "a little" about atheism.
      2)I haven't been able to prove that atheists give as much to charity as religious institutions.
      3)You believe that I don't know even "a little" about atheism because of point #2.
      4)Conversely, knowing "a little" about atheism would mean that I could show that atheists give as much to charity as religious institutions.
      5)Ergo, it's a matter of the most basic knowledge regarding atheism that atheists give as much to charity as religious institutions. Since I did not show that fact, you concluded that I have no knowledge about atheism.

      "You haven't been able to "show" it because you can't find any proof that atheists give on the same scale that religious institutions give to the community. I found proof for my claim. Again ... you bring NOTHING but crying."

      I'm not looking for anything about atheists. Like I've said multiple times, I don't care. I didn't make any claim about it at all, I simply read your comment as you wrote it.

      Delete
    43. You say that they provide "that tax amount" in services. There isn't a single modifier or qualifier to suggest that you're talking about guesswork.

      That's how stupid you are. There IS NO EXACT TAX AMOUNT. You can't find one, Eddie couldn't find one. The cartoon doesn't have one. Now, go back and explain how I am stating that as fact. Do your job this time or quit blogging.


      You don't know what amount you said that churches provide in services?

      No. because I never said one. You have been proven to be a liar AGAIN.


      I posted it previously as well. You forgot that already, it seems.

      Stupid liar. You think people can't go back and read?
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1397171177073#c5119343277262831975


      The "But, apparently, you don't" part connects the two sentences. You can't deny that.

      Caught you in yet another lie and that's the best you can do? What a lame lying l little bitch.


      I'm not looking for anything about atheists.

      I don't blame you there. Nobody cares about atheists. If the rest of them are like you, they all lie and are gay and live alone because no one can put up with their shit.

      Delete
    44. "There IS NO EXACT TAX AMOUNT."

      Then you shouldn't have claimed that churches provided that amount in services.

      "No. because I never said one."

      You said "that tax amount". That had to refer to a number.

      "Stupid liar. You think people can't go back and read?"

      I can see that you can't. Your own quote says that I said the whole sentence before what you just linked to. So, your link doesn't prove anything. And you couldn't go back and read this: "But, since you didn't realize what you said, I'll explain it for you. Read it again: "I'm hoping you know a little about atheism. But, apparently, you don't because you haven't been able to show atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do." So, if I knew about atheism, I would be able to show that atheists give to the community on the scale that religious institutions do."

      "Caught you in yet another lie and that's the best you can do?"

      I don't see your denial there. Back up what you say.

      "I don't blame you there."

      That's good, so now you can abandon your off-topic rants.

      Delete
    45. Then you shouldn't have claimed that churches provided that amount in services.

      Why not? You can't prove me wrong. I proved my statements correct. You lose, I win ... AGAIN.


      You said "that tax amount". That had to refer to a number.

      What number is that? Bring some proof of that number or shut the fuck up. You can't even bring a simple number to support your own position ... just whine and cry about others proving you wrong over and over again.


      I don't see your denial there. Back up what you say.

      No, I want to act like an atheist. You don't back up what you say, why should I?


      That's good, so now you can abandon your off-topic rants.

      I'm never off topic. You haven't ever shown me to be off topic. You won't ever be able to do that either. You know why? Because you NEVER back up what you say with facts. You just make shit up.

      Delete
    46. "Why not? You can't prove me wrong. I proved my statements correct."

      You can't prove that an amount of money was provided in services when you don't know what the amount is.

      "What number is that?"

      You're the one who must know, since you made an assertion based on it.

      "You don't back up what you say, why should I?"

      What haven't I supported?

      "I'm never off topic."

      Then show where my marital status or atheism is part of the topic here.

      Delete
    47. You can't prove that an amount of money was provided in services when you don't know what the amount is.

      Deductive reasoning. That process is being used to determine the mythical tax debt. Why are you having such a problem with it now? Do you hate it when the same process you accept for denouncing Church finances is the same process you refuse to accept when Church finances are defended?


      Then show where my marital status or atheism is part of the topic here.

      When Eddie made THIS article about religion and marriage. Don't blame me for being able to follow along with the discussion just because you cannot.

      Delete
    48. You can't prove that an amount of money was provided in services when you don't know what the amount is.

      Deductive reasoning. Does it make you mad that you accept that process to denounce Church finances but you refuse to accept that process while Church finances are defended?


      Then show where my marital status or atheism is part of the topic here.

      Right here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html

      When Eddie brought this article about Religion and Marriage.

      Delete
    49. "Deductive reasoning. Does it make you mad that you accept that process to denounce Church finances but you refuse to accept that process while Church finances are defended?"

      You aren't using deductive reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning. Your guesses aren't consistent with that process at all. In order for you to prove anything, your premises have to be true. You can't possibly show that they are, because your assumptions can't be validated.

      "When Eddie brought this article about Religion and Marriage."

      Atheism isn't a religion, and this article isn't about marriage. Your mention of marriage was the only one found through the search function.

      I'm setting you up, by the way. Let's see if you can figure it out.

      Delete
    50. You aren't using deductive reasoning:

      Yes I am. I provided 2 general statements to which I came to my conclusion. And Eddie used 1 general statement to come to his conclusion. Deductive reasoning.
      Your link: Deductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.


      Atheism isn't a religion, and this article isn't about marriage.

      Sure it is and Eddie's cartoons specifically mentions marriage.

      Considering what kind of lies you will bring, who cares about your set ups.
      You are wrong, just admit it and move on.

      Delete
    51. I'm setting you up, by the way. Let's see if you can figure it out.

      Can atheists be discriminated against for being atheist? If not, why not?

      Delete
    52. "Yes I am. I provided 2 general statements to [sic] which I came to my conclusion."

      What were those "general" statements, again?

      "Sure it is and Eddie's cartoons specifically mentions [sic] marriage."

      But Eddie didn't mention marriage. That's why your use of the word was the only one in the search, because it wasn't in his commentary. So, the whole idea was to get you to admit that it was just a word in the graphic. That means that you're also claiming that this article is about: food, pay, population, rights, privilege, stamps, and sex. That's quite the diverse article, according to you.

      On top of that, the graphic (not "cartoon") "specifically mentions" same-sex marriage. You asked if I had a wife. That wouldn't be relevant to the "topic", obviously.

      And no, atheism is not a religion. It doesn't fit the definition of the word. I know, of course, that's only a consideration for people who put objectivity ahead of ego.

      "Can atheists be discriminated against for being atheist?"

      Yes. What's the plan, to try to connect your two off-topic subjects?

      Delete
    53. What were those "general" statements, again?

      Go back and read them. You're the one who has a fancy search function.


      But Eddie didn't mention marriage.

      Yes he did. In the graphic from the article.


      That's why your use of the word was the only one in the search, because it wasn't in his commentary.

      "Church" wasn't in his commentary either. Which makes my deductive reasoning even more accurate. If you include ALL "organized religion" into the factoring of how much the Church gives to the community, then "organized religion" easily repays any supposed tax debt with services rendered. Thank you for pointing out I am even more right than before.


      You asked if I had a wife.

      Are you still living in the stone age? Some same sex couples call each other husband/wife too. Besides, you never answered, so maybe your "wife" isn't a woman and you're ashamed to admit it.


      And no, atheism is not a religion. It doesn't fit the definition of the word.

      It fits Merriam-Webster's definition of the word. And, since you refuse to use ANY other dictionary besides that one, then you are wrong.
      "religion: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"
      AND
      "religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"


      Yes.

      On what basis? Keep in mind the parameters for that discrimination must be "for being atheist". That is what I'm asking, try (for once) to stay focused.

      So, I am not off topic if I am discussing your religion and your marital status on an article about religion and marriage.

      Delete
    54. "Go back and read them."

      I already know what you said. I want to see you post them in your context of "general" statements.

      "Yes he did."

      No, that happened to be part of the graphic, he didn't mention it. He didn't bring it up in the article.

      "You're the one who has a fancy search function."

      The search function is "fancy"? I'm pretty sure everyone has a search function available, even if they don't know about it.

      ""Church" wasn't in his commentary either."

      It's not needed: "When the best thing you can say about organized religion is that it is a highly inefficient way to deal with poverty? Yeah: I say it's high time we started taxing [the shit out of] it, just as we do with EVERY OTHER VICE." So, surely there's some synonym for "marriage" in the article, right?

      "If you include ALL "organized religion" into the factoring of how much the Church gives to the community, then "organized religion" easily repays any supposed tax debt with services rendered."

      Your own link would suggest that your 400K figure includes them already.

      "Are you still living in the stone age? Some same sex couples call each other husband/wife too."

      What some same-sex couples call each other is different from you using the term. You're not part of the "call each other" qualifier, so it's not the right word for you to use. On top of that, as already emphasized, some people don't dictate the use of a general term.

      "Besides, you never answered, so maybe your "wife" isn't a woman and you're ashamed to admit it."

      I've mentioned my marriage on relevant occasions, so your theory doesn't hold up. By the way, your quotation marks are improper usage, according to you.

      "religion: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"

      Note the example: "Hockey is a religion in Canada." Do you think hockey is a religion as well? Now we have a very broad scope for topics, since I could claim that any possible interest or activity is a "religion" to me.

      "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

      What is the "system" of beliefs that would apply there?

      "And, since you refuse to use ANY other dictionary besides that one, then you are wrong."

      Where did I suggest that I refused to use any other dictionary?

      "On what basis? Keep in mind the parameters for that discrimination must be "for being atheist"."

      You asked if atheists can be discriminated against for being atheist. Since I already quoted you and said "yes", I know it's about being atheist. The basis of it would be differing from those in the majority and/or in power, just like the typical demonstration of discrimination.

      "So, I am not off topic if I am discussing your religion and your marital status on an article about religion and marriage."

      The article doesn't say merely "religion", it says "organized religion". Even if atheism was a religion, it's not organized (hint:a hockey team fan club isn't an "organized religion"). Here's another test: would you say that Zoroastrianism is relevant? If so, why?

      Also, why do you use "atheism" and "atheist" as if they're interchangable? They end with different letters, so aren't they "different words"?

      Finally, do you collect stamps? Stamp-collecting is like a religion to me. And I see that Eddie mentioned "stamps" in the graphic above, so obviously we can start a discussion on it. (Note the sarcasm for the entire paragraph)

      Delete
    55. I already know what you said.

      Then the troll doesn't need any further clarification.


      I'm pretty sure everyone has a search function available, even if they don't know about it.

      But, like all trolls, has no ACTUAL knowledge of what is being discussed, only what you think is being discussed.


      Since I already quoted you and said "yes", I know it's about being atheist.

      But, the troll doesn't explain what the basis for that discrimination is.


      hint:a (sic) hockey team fan club isn't an "organized religion"

      The troll thinks hockey is a religion. Cute.


      Finally, do you collect stamps?

      No, I'm not a troll so I wouldn't attempt to take this article off-topic by discussing stamp collecting.


      Do you think hockey is a religion as well?

      I don't live in Canada. Only a troll would use Canadian Hockey as an example of religion. If someone was NOT a troll they would easily understand what a dictionary was saying.

      Delete
    56. "Then the troll doesn't need any further clarification."

      Then it stands as fact that you aren't talking about anything "general". If you want to prove your point, step up.

      "But, like all trolls, has no ACTUAL knowledge of what is being discussed, only what you think is being discussed."

      You mentioned the "fancy" search function. What you say is subject to my reply.

      "But, the troll doesn't explain what the basis for that discrimination is."

      Again: "The basis of it would be differing from those in the majority and/or in power, just like the typical demonstration of discrimination."

      "The troll thinks hockey is a religion."

      No, it's not. Like atheism is not a religion. You got lost for a minute, there.

      By the way, not only is it hilarious that you can't find the brackets on your keyboard, but that you put your attempt for correction after "a". What's wrong with "a"? Is it supposed to be "an hockey team"? Also, you said that you weren't quoting me, so "[sic]" isn't applicable. You can't use it while paraphrasing. But if you are quoting me without using quotation marks, then you certainly aren't in any place to correct your perception of an error.

      "No, I'm not a troll so I wouldn't attempt to take this article off-topic by discussing stamp collecting."

      But "stamps" was in the graphic, so it's not "off-topic". That's your own rule, so why are you contradicting yourself?

      "I don't live in Canada."

      So what? I don't live in Japan, but I know that Shinto is a religion.

      "If someone was NOT a troll they would easily understand what a dictionary was saying."

      You brought this as evidence from Merriam-Webster: "religion: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". One of its own examples is "Hockey is a religion in Canada", because that would be an interest or activity that is very important to a person or group. Obviously, that definition is not relevant to a discussion on organized religion's tax-exempt status.

      Incidentally, are you calling a dictionary a "troll"? That's just bizarre.

      Delete
    57. Then it stands as fact that you aren't talking about anything "general".

      Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of trolls, so further explanation would be futile.


      Again:

      You need to expound on that, troll. That alone isn't sufficient.


      No, it's not. Like atheism is not a religion.

      The troll said hockey is a religion.


      What's wrong with "a"?

      Looks like the troll doesn't even know simple grammar.


      So what? I don't live in Japan, but I know that Shinto is a religion.

      The troll denied saying it earlier, now the troll is saying hockey is a religion. It is common for trolls to deny then claim the same thing during conversations.


      Incidentally, are you calling a dictionary a "troll"?

      Shifting blame is a common tactic of trolls when they are proven wrong.


      Let me help the troll out a little. Although, trolls seldom accept fact or proven points, so this will be a waste of time.
      The dictionary indicates 3 parameters that would cause something to be called a religion: an INTEREST or a BELIEF or an ACTIVITY.
      Now, for the tough part for a troll to understand ... there is no AND within the stated parameters. To be classified a religion atheism is not required to be all 3 ... just one of the stated parameters. So, is atheism an INTEREST of yours? Is atheism a BELIEF of yours OR is atheism an INTEREST of yours, troll?

      Delete
    58. "Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of trolls, so further explanation would be futile."

      A lack of reading comprehension would be how you read the phrase "you believe that God spoke first" as "I believe that God spoke first". Apparently I'm not required to explain anything to you, since you wouldn't understand. Meanwhile, your failure to prove your claim negates your "deductive reasoning".

      "You need to expound on that, troll. That alone isn't sufficient."

      Amusingly, your claim that it isn't sufficient needs to be expounded upon. That is clearly a basis for discrimination, so it answered your question. If you're looking for something else, say what and why. You're going to get very frustrated if you wait for me to play guessing games.

      "The troll said hockey is a religion."

      I asked you if you thought that hockey was a religion. Since the point of contention is your claim that atheism is a religion, the phrase "as well" in my question obviously means that I don't think that either of the two qualifies as a religion. But feel free to parse my question in order to show a basis for your accusation.

      "Looks like the troll doesn't even know simple grammar."

      You need to expound on that.

      "The troll denied saying it earlier, now the troll is saying hockey is a religion."

      No, my comment was specific to your "I don't live in Canada" statement. Where you live has nothing to do with the point at hand.

      "Shifting blame is a common tactic of trolls when they are proven wrong."

      Merriam-Webster.com: "Hockey is a religion in Canada".
      You: "Only a troll would use Canadian Hockey as an example of religion."
      Undoubtedly, you're calling the dictionary a troll. Considering all of your other comments on the nature of trolls, you just discredited your own evidence.

      "The dictionary indicates 3 parameters that would cause something to be called a religion: an INTEREST or a BELIEF or an ACTIVITY."

      You mean, the dictionary that's a "troll" because it used hockey as an example of a religion?

      "Now, for the tough part for a troll to understand ... there is no AND within the stated parameters. To be classified a religion atheism is not required to be all 3 ... just one of the stated parameters."

      I never suggested otherwise. Note the post you're replying to, where I state: "that would be an interest or activity that is very important to a person or group." The word "or" between "interest" and "activity" pretty clearly proves that I don't think that all three terms need to be used together.

      "Is atheism a BELIEF of yours OR is atheism an INTEREST of yours, troll?"

      Neither. I don't have a belief at all. Clearly that has to be the case for some people, otherwise everyone in the world has a "religion", and that would be a rather absurd claim for you to make. Even further, qualification for your definition requires that the belief "is very important to a person or group". You're going to speak for everyone who doesn't believe in a higher power in order to assert that it's "very important" to them? That seems awfully arrogant, but I await your clarification to show otherwise.

      Delete
    59. That is clearly a basis for discrimination, so it answered your question.

      The troll says because he/she is different, then discrimination is present. And, then the troll says that is sufficient reason and the troll will not expound on his/her meaning of different. Because everyone is different from everyone else.


      You're going to get very frustrated if you wait for me to play guessing games.

      That is all trolls play, anyway. Why would it be different now?


      You mean, the dictionary that's a "troll" because it used hockey as an example of a religion?

      The troll used "hockey is a religion" as an example. The dictionary fully explains what constitutes a religion. The troll is trying to squirm his/her way out of explaining how atheism does not fit within the parameters given. And, when the troll doesn't even address what is being discussed then he/she is proving themselves to be a troll.


      I don't have a belief at all.

      Do you believe there is a God, or do you believe there is no God? Either one is a belief. But, it's nice to see the troll improperly interpret the meanings of basic words in order to justify his/her position. Not to mention totally ignoring another meaning of the word that signifies atheism can be a religion (an INTEREST) as defined in the dictionary (of preference for the troll).


      Even further, qualification for your definition requires that the belief "is very important to a person or group".

      Ok, that will be simple to clarify. Is it very important to you (the troll), or a group of atheists, that there is or is not a God? Feel free to not answer if the answer would show that atheism qualifies to be termed a religion. I would expect you to dance around that question because that's what trolls do ... ignore the pertinent questions and make up shit as they need to.


      You're going to speak for everyone who doesn't believe in a higher power in order to assert that it's "very important" to them?

      No, but I am asking you (the troll).


      Delete
    60. "The troll says because he/she is different, then discrimination is present."

      No, I said that being different from those in majority or those in power is the basis for discrimination. You asked whether atheists "can" be victims of discrimination or not, you didn't say anything about discrimination being automatically present.

      "And, then the troll says that is sufficient reason and the troll will not expound on his/her meaning of different."

      You don't understand the word?

      "Because everyone is different from everyone else."

      And as soon as any possible difference results in discrimination, then that was the basis for it. In all seriousness, you're not clarifying yourself in the slightest.

      "That is all trolls play, anyway. Why would it be different now?"

      It wouldn't be. And since I clearly implied that I don't play guessing games, that undermines your obsessive use of the term.

      "The troll used "hockey is a religion" as an example. The dictionary fully explains what constitutes a religion."

      The dictionary used "Hockey is a religion in Canada" as one of its examples. If you had read your source, you would have noticed that.

      "The troll is trying to squirm his/her way out of explaining how atheism does not fit within the parameters given."

      Funny, there are several questions and points above which demonstrate that atheism is not a religion, yet you haven't addressed them. That would obviously qualify as you trying to "squirm" your way out of explaining how your definitions could possibly apply.

      "And, when the troll doesn't even address what is being discussed then he/she is proving themselves to be a troll."

      Since I respond to what you say, any issues with going out-of-bounds would be your responsibility.

      "Do you believe there is a God, or do you believe there is no God?"

      Neither. I do not believe in any higher power. It's not a matter of faith, as believing in the lack of a higher power would be. It's an important distinction that I expect you'll pretend not to grasp.

      Incidentally, anyone who isn't Christian wouldn't believe in "a God". They may believe in their own god or gods, so they wouldn't be atheists.

      "Not to mention totally ignoring another meaning of the word that signifies atheism can be a religion (an INTEREST) as defined in the dictionary (of preference for the troll)."

      So you do believe that hockey is a religion in Canada, since it would be considered an "interest". Fascinating.

      "Is it very important to you (the troll), or a group of atheists, that there is or is not a God?"

      Since atheists don't believe in any higher power, your question doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to argue that the concept that "there is" a god is important to the label of atheist? I don't see any other reason for that to be included, but I'll let you explain yourself.

      "No, but I am asking you (the troll)."

      I'm not going to speak for others, either. I have no idea why you would even suggest such a thing.

      Delete
    61. And as soon as any possible difference results in discrimination, then that was the basis for it. In all seriousness, you're not clarifying yourself in the slightest.

      You haven't clarified what the "difference" is. You need to do that in order for your criteria to fit.


      Neither. I do not believe in any higher power.

      Ok, so in your belief, there is no "higher power". That would classify your beliefs as a religion (according to your preferred dictionary).


      It's not a matter of faith, as believing in the lack of a higher power would be.

      There is no mention of "faith" being the deciding parameter for belief or interest or activity to be a religion that is "very important to someone (anyone). The preferred dictionary of the troll simply says if one of those parameters is "very important" then it can be defined as a religion.
      Is there being no "higher power" very important to you or other atheists? Try to follow along, troll.


      So you do believe that hockey is a religion in Canada, since it would be considered an "interest".

      I do not live in Canada, so your insistence that I believe like a Canadian is a lie. Remember this: "So what? I don't live in Japan, but I know that Shinto is a religion.".
      That means YOU are the one who "knows" that hockey is a religion in Canada. I've already explained I don't live in Canada. But, your belief is you don't have to live a certain place in order to "know" what is a religion. So, it is YOU who is saying hockey is a religion in Canada. I certainly have never said that. Is this another of your "beliefs" within the atheist religion?


      I have no idea why you would even suggest such a thing.

      That was your suggestion; "You're going to speak for everyone who doesn't believe in a higher power in order to assert that it's "very important" to them?"

      Yet, another lie by the troll. I answered "No, but I am asking you (the troll)." The troll has still failed to answer that.
      Which, BTW, was the first time asserting anything upon anyone was suggested. Meaning YOU are the one who suggested that possibility, not me. Making the troll a proven, habitual liar.


      Incidentally, anyone who isn't Christian wouldn't believe in "a God".

      Yet, another lie by the troll. Muslims believe in "a God". Catholics believe in "a God", Judaism believes in "a God". There are lot's of religions (non-Christian) that believe in "a God". The troll just wants to promote as many lies as possible. Perhaps you're not lying and you simply just do not know anything about monotheistic religions.
      If you admit you do not know, then I will retract calling you a liar on this point. If you claim to know of monotheistic religions, then you are a liar. Which will it be, troll?

      Keep bringing those lies, troll. The self-reinforcement of you being a liar is simply astounding.

      Delete
    62. "You haven't clarified what the "difference" is."

      That shouldn't be necessary, since you stressed "for being atheist". Atheists are a minority, as those of your ilk are fond of pointing out.

      "Ok, so in your belief, there is no "higher power". That would classify your beliefs as a religion (according to your preferred dictionary)."

      I don't have a belief, as I said already. Rearranging words in order to fit your invalid definition doesn't make a compelling argument.

      "There is no mention of "faith" being the deciding parameter for belief or interest or activity to be a religion that is "very important to someone (anyone)."

      I didn't say that it was. The "interest or activity" part wasn't even what you were talking about there, by the way.

      "The preferred dictionary of the troll simply says if one of those parameters is "very important" then it can be defined as a religion."

      Then you think that hockey is a religion.

      "Is there being no "higher power" very important to you or other atheists?"

      It's not important to me, since it only represents a lack of a belief. I'm still wondering why you expect me to speak for others.

      "I do not live in Canada, so your insistence that I believe like a Canadian is a lie. Remember this: "So what? I don't live in Japan, but I know that Shinto is a religion.""

      What a bizarre juxtaposition of comments. I don't have to believe in Shinto to say that it's a religion in Japan. You don't have to live in Canada to believe that hockey is a religion there. You just undercut your own basis for claiming some "insistence" that you believe "like a Canadian".

      "That means YOU are the one who "knows" that hockey is a religion in Canada. I've already explained I don't live in Canada."

      I don't live in Canada, either, so you're not drawing any distinction. Besides that, the "Shinto" comment was only regarding the fact that you don't have to live somewhere specific to recognize the existence of a religion. Since I had asked you if you thought that hockey was a religion, I was pointing out that your response was irrelevant.

      "But, your belief is you don't have to live [sic] a certain place in order to "know" what is a religion."

      No, that's a fact. And why did you put "know" in quotes?

      "I certainly have never said that."

      You may as well, now, since you insist that any activity or interest that's very important to someone qualifies as a "religion".

      "That was your suggestion; "You're going to speak for everyone who doesn't believe in a higher power in order to assert that it's "very important" to them?""

      No, you're suggesting that I should speak for others, which would be irresponsible and arrogant. I have no idea why you would advocate that.

      "Meaning YOU are the one who suggested that possibility, not me."

      That's a rather odd point of contention, since directly before the denial you cite above, you said: "Is it very important to you (the troll), or a group of atheists, that there is or is not a God?" So, you asked me to speak for others. Then I said:"I'm not going to speak for others, either. I have no idea why you would even suggest such a thing." I hope that helps you orient yourself.

      "Muslims believe in "a God". Catholics believe in "a God", Judaism believes in "a God"."

      Muslims believe in Allah. Jewish people believe in YHWH (or "Adonai"), with other names as well (but not "God"). Catholics, of course, are Christians. Someone who considers Catholics "non-Christian" probably shouldn't be trying to make assertions about religion at all.

      Delete
    63. Atheists are a minority, as those of your ilk are fond of pointing out.

      Red-heads are a minority, too. What's your point? That being a red-head is a basis for discrimination? Wow, the troll is really reaching to argue a point that he/she has already lost.
      Who is my "ilk"?


      Rearranging words in order to fit your invalid definition doesn't make a compelling argument.

      What words were rearranged? You said you don't believe in a "higher power". That is a belief that you hold as very important to your faith.


      Then you think that hockey is a religion.

      I don't live in Canada. No, I do not believe that. You can't assign beliefs to me when you state that I must be IN Canada to hold that belief. Trolls aren't very smart in this aspect of conversational skills and you are truly showing that you are a troll.


      It's not important to me, since it only represents a lack of a belief.

      I'm sure you mean 'lack of deity' but are trying to lie your way through this conversation. Is that true, troll?


      What a bizarre juxtaposition of comments.

      You are very confused, troll. Do you even remember what you wrote? You wrote that Merriam-Webster.com says: "Hockey is a religion in Canada". I explained that I do not live in Canada, so it could not possibly be a religion to me if I am NOT IN CANADA.


      Catholics, of course, are Christians.

      Is that your belief? Or is that true according to some other source that you are not mentioning?


      Muslims believe in Allah. Jewish people believe in YHWH (or "Adonai"), with other names as well (but not "God").

      Changing parameters again, troll? You didn't say "God", you said "a God". Which is true for any monotheistic religion. Which each of the examples I brought are.


      Someone who considers Catholics "non-Christian" probably shouldn't be trying to make assertions about religion at all.

      Trolls that know very little about religion shouldn't be telling others who a God is.


      You may as well, now, since you insist that any activity or interest that's very important to someone qualifies as a "religion".

      Why would I be so stupid as to say something that isn't true? Do you think I'm the lying troll brabantio? Of course you don't think that. So I am not a liar.


      You may as well, now, since you insist that any activity or interest that's very important to someone qualifies as a "religion".

      But, I won't. That makes you a liar. Because I never said that. And, you have now admitted that I never said that. That makes you a self-admitted, habitual, liar.

      Delete
    64. "That being a red-head is a basis for discrimination?"

      It's not as likely, but it's possible. You did ask about a possibility, if you remember.

      "Wow, the troll is really reaching to argue a point that he/she has already lost."

      You haven't even explained what you think your point is, so it's impossible to claim that you've proven it.

      "Who is my "ilk"?"

      Pious bigots.

      ."You said you don't believe in a "higher power"."

      Which doesn't assert that I believe that there is no higher power. The same goes for aliens (as in extraterrestrial, so you don't get confused). I don't believe that they've visited us, but at the same time, I don't believe that they haven't. If you're not grasping how that's possible, the problem is all yours.

      "That is a belief that you hold as very important to your faith."

      I don't have a belief, much less a faith.

      "I don't live in Canada."

      That doesn't matter.

      "You can't assign beliefs to me when you state that I must be IN Canada to hold that belief."

      I didn't say that you followed the "religion" of hockey, I said you think that it is a religion. I know of dozens of religions, and I don't hold beliefs from any of them.

      "I'm sure you mean 'lack of deity' but are trying to lie your way through this conversation."

      No, I mean lack of belief. A Buddhist lacks a deity but definitely has beliefs. And now you know.

      "You wrote that Merriam-Webster.com says: "Hockey is a religion in Canada". I explained that I do not live in Canada, so it could not possibly be a religion to me if I am NOT IN CANADA."

      Do you deny that Merriam-Webster used that example? And you're going to have a lot of trouble explaining why location matters if "activity" or "interest" qualify as a "religion". Have you even heard of Detroit? Do you believe that nobody in that city considers hockey to be "very important" to them?

      "Is that your belief?"

      No, that's objective reality. I'll be more kind than you deserve and warn you not to pursue this one, to save you great embarrassment.

      "Changing parameters again, troll? You didn't say "God", you said "a God"."

      Since you missed it earlier: "They may believe in their own god or gods, so they wouldn't be atheists." Also: http://grammarist.com/style/god-capitalization/

      "Trolls that know very little about religion shouldn't be telling others who a God is."

      There's only one "God", so that identity isn't in question.

      "Why would I be so stupid as to say something that isn't true?"

      I'm guessing that you had an untreated head injury, personally. But you're not addressing the fact that your own definition would declare hockey to be a religion, to any number of people anywhere in the world who consider it to be very important to them.

      "But, I won't. That makes you a liar. Because I never said that."

      So, saying that you "may as well" means that you did say it? I think this may be a new one for you. You make a comment about the future ("I won't"), then you use that to declare me a "liar" because of the past ("I never said that."). That's "really reaching", to be incredibly charitable.

      Or is your point that a statement about what you clearly do believe is a "lie" because you never said that you believe it? I'm not sure which is the more amusing possibility, but I'm looking forward to your choice.

      Delete
    65. I didn't say that you followed the "religion" of hockey, I said you think that it is a religion.

      You said the example was "Hockey is a religion in Canada". How could I possibly THINK hockey is a religion if I'm not IN Canada? Are you a psychic troll? That should really add to your reputation of simply making shit up.


      No, that's objective reality.

      Bring proof of their Christianity. Christians pray to one God, Catholics pray to several. Christians are told that Jesus is the only way, Catholics are told Mary can be another way. Bring your proof and try to embarrass me.


      Incidentally, anyone who isn't Christian wouldn't believe in "a God".

      That is what you actually said. You said "a God". At the end of that sentence is a period. Meaning you have finished your statement. If you had wanted to continue it, you would have used a comma.
      That means you have changed the parameters and you are lying, again, troll.


      But you're not addressing the fact that your own definition would declare hockey to be a religion, to any number of people anywhere in the world who consider it to be very important to them.

      Unfortunately, you said I must be IN Canada for it to be a religion. Are you now changing that to IN Detroit? Maybe you want to change that to IN Israel. Or IN South Africa. Now, to those people it may be true. But, not to me. That makes atheism a religion because it fits the description as you are using it to defend your statement that hockey is a religion. Are you going to deny that fact?
      So, now that we have determined and agreed that atheism is a religion, what is it you are trying to prove? Because I don't believe in the religion of atheism, either. And the same is true for your purported religion of hockey. My belief in either does not determine whether they fit the definition. The simple fact that atheism fits within the accepted definition makes that determination. And, you have obviously accepted the definition, since you demand that there is a religion of hockey.

      Trolls have such a problem with truth and facts. Have you ever tried to bring either one to these discussions? Like your "hundreds of original comments"? Ah ha ha
      Trolls are liars, that's a given. You are a troll, that is obvious.

      Delete
    66. "You said the example was "Hockey is a religion in Canada"."

      If you read you own source, you wouldn't have to add "You said" to that.

      "How could I possibly THINK hockey is a religion if I'm not IN Canada?"

      Because you would think that it's a religion for people in Canada.

      "Bring proof of their Christianity."

      With pleasure: "1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianity

      Note this sentence of yours, as well: "The simple fact that atheism fits within the accepted definition makes that determination." Catholicism not only fits the definition of "Christianity", it's cited as an example.

      "Meaning you have finished your statement. If you had wanted to continue it, you would have used a comma."

      What in the hell are you babbling about? You didn't read the comment because you saw a period and skipped over to the next paragraph, or what?

      "Unfortunately, you said I must be IN Canada for it to be a religion."

      No, I didn't. First off, that was the dictionary example. Secondly, saying that hockey is a religion in Canada doesn't mean it's the only place where it's a "religion". Again, read up on Detroit.

      "Are you now changing that to IN Detroit?"

      I'm not "changing" anything. If you say that any interest can be a "religion", then it doesn't rely on location. Hockey can be a "religion" anywhere, by your own argument.

      "That makes atheism a religion because it fits the description as you are using it to defend your statement that hockey is a religion."

      No, atheism is not a religion because hockey is not an actual religion. That's the point. I'm demonstrating that by your absurd standard, anything can be considered a "religion". As I said at the time: "Do you think hockey is a religion as well? Now we have a very broad scope for topics, since I could claim that any possible interest or activity is a "religion" to me."

      "My belief in either does not determine whether they fit the definition."

      Then why have you been denying that you think that hockey is a religion? You don't have to believe in it to say that, so there shouldn't be any hurdle for you.

      "Like your "hundreds of original comments"? Ah ha ha"

      Are you disputing that?

      Delete
    67. That should be "your own source".

      Delete
    68. With pleasure:

      Umm, they don't use the Bible. They've created their own version. You're wrong, again, troll. Bring some real proof, next time. Jesus Christ says not to add to or take away from the Bible. They have done that. That means they are against the Word of God. If someone is against the Word of God, then they can hardly be Christian.
      Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

      Obviously, a Christian would never add or take away from the Bible. Catholics have done that.


      Catholicism not only fits the definition of "Christianity", it's cited as an example.

      Actually, you are wrong. It does NOT fit within the definition. The definition (as you wrote it) says: "based on the Bible as sacred scripture". How can that be true if they use a different Bible than the one approved by God?


      No, I didn't.

      Yes you did. You said people in Canada think hockey is a religion. I'm not in Canada.


      Again, read up on Detroit.

      I'm not in Detroit, either.


      Hockey can be a "religion" anywhere, by your own argument.

      It isn't a religion, here in Alameda. How can it be a religion anywhere if it isn't one, here? You DID say anywhere, right?


      I'm demonstrating that by your absurd standard, anything can be considered a "religion".

      According to your preferred dictionary, that is true. Therefor, atheism fits the definition of religion. You lose, again, troll.


      Then why have you been denying that you think that hockey is a religion?

      I haven't denied it's a religion, by definition. I have denied living in Canada (or Detroit) therefor it isn't a religion for me. But, to those who live in those areas, as you have pointed out, it is a religion for them. Which accounts for why atheism is a religion for you.
      I'm sorry you are having such a hard time with facts. But, that's how this game works. I bring facts, you bring nothing. Troll.


      Are you disputing that?

      I HAVE disputed that. And you have NOT proven it. Nothing unexpected there, by the troll.


      Delete
    69. "Umm, they don't use the Bible. They've created their own version."

      Which is still considered "the Bible." You don't call it anything else.

      "Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"

      That would seem to apply to Revelation, not the entire Bible. Also, did those plagues get set upon the Catholic church?

      "The definition (as you wrote it) says: "based on the Bible as sacred scripture"."

      Does the definition appear differently to you on the website?

      "How can that be true if they use a different Bible than the one approved by God?"

      Even by your argument, a version of the Bible would be "based" on the Bible. Besides that, "approved by God" is a hilariously subjective claim, and obviously can't be used when establishing definitions. Any group could claim that they're the only true Christians because their holy text is "approved by God."

      "You said people in Canada think hockey is a religion."

      I didn't say you had to be in Canada to believe that hockey is a religion. That's your warped logic, not even close to anything I've said.

      "I'm not in Detroit, either."

      You predictably missed the glaringly obvious point. People in Detroit aren't in Canada.

      "It isn't a religion, here in Alameda."

      How do you know? Have you taken a poll of the entire population's interests?

      "How can it be a religion anywhere if it isn't one, here?"

      Who says it won't become one? The word can refers to possibilities, not certainties.

      "According to your preferred dictionary, that is true."

      So anything can be discussed on a thread about "religion", including stamp-collecting. Fascinating.

      "Therefor [sic], atheism fits the definition of religion."

      So does basket-weaving and rock/paper/scissors. As I plainly stated, your standard is absurd.

      "I haven't denied it's a religion, by definition."

      Yes, you have: "The troll denied saying it earlier, now the troll is saying hockey is a religion. It is common for trolls to deny then claim the same thing during conversations." That second sentence is especially amusing, given your new stance.

      "Which accounts for why atheism is a religion for you."

      Except religion, in the context of actual faiths such as Lutheran, Catholic, etc, are not defined on an individual basis. For instance, let's say you have two Mormons for comparison. One considers their beliefs "very important", and the other is more casual in their faith. Mormonism can't be both a religion and not a religion at the same time. So, obviously, that standard can't possibly be applied here. If some other atheist thinks atheism is "very important" to them, that doesn't transfer over to me.

      Delete
    70. Which is still considered "the Bible." You don't call it anything else.

      Yes, I do, troll. So much for you knowing what I do. Not such the psychic are you, troll?


      That would seem to apply to Revelation, not the entire Bible. Also, did those plagues get set upon the Catholic church?

      Not knowing about religion is really hampering your ability to argue this subject. And, I'm not a Catholic, and I haven't died (yet) so, I can't say if they have be "set upon the Catholic church". But, I fully expect that God will keep His Word on this subject. When you learn a bit more about religion, you may figure that out too, troll.


      Besides that, "approved by God" is a hilariously subjective claim, and obviously can't be used when establishing definitions.

      Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge of religion while expressing your opinion.


      I didn't say you had to be in Canada to believe that hockey is a religion.

      Yes. I'm afraid you did.


      How do you know? Have you taken a poll of the entire population's interests?

      Yes, I've taken the acceptable random poll of the acceptable number of residents to come to my conclusion. Do you want the results? Does Harris poll every resident to get their polls completed?


      So anything can be discussed on a thread about "religion", including stamp-collecting. Fascinating.

      Factually, you're discussing "stamp collecting" because this article mentions "food stamps". It's a reach, but I'm not complaining about it.


      So does basket-weaving and rock/paper/scissors.

      Perhaps, but that doesn't change the FACT that so does atheism. You're not doing very well, troll.


      Yes, you have:

      I'm not "the troll", you are. I haven't changed my stance. Still floundering, troll.


      So, obviously, that standard can't possibly be applied here.

      Except you have expressed that atheism is very important to you.

      Game ... Set ... Match.

      Delete
    71. That would seem to apply to Revelation, not the entire Bible.

      "Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"
      Let me add on to my previous comment. God is saying "the prophecy of this book". That obviously refers to Revelation being the "prophecy" and the Bible being "this book". And the "plagues" will be added. It doesn't say they HAVE been added. It says they WILL be added. Do you understand what "prophecy" means? Do you need to look that word up too?

      Delete
    72. "Yes, I do, troll."

      What do you call it, specifically?

      "And, I'm not a Catholic, and I haven't died (yet) so, I can't say if they have be "set upon the Catholic church"."

      You would have to be dead in order to suffer the plagues that were released upon the Earth? And if there was supposed to be that sort of punishment for rewriting the Bible, I'd think it would be pretty noticeable when it happened.

      "Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge of religion while expressing your opinion."

      There aren't any specifics that could possibly change that. To say that God approves of something is pure opinion. Your belief isn't a basis for objective definitions.

      "Yes. I'm afraid you did."

      It's not true because you say so. I used the dictionary's example, which you seem to have trouble admitting.

      "Yes, I've taken the acceptable random poll of the acceptable number of residents to come to my conclusion."

      No, you'd have to ask everyone. Because if one person thinks it's "very important", then it's a "religion".

      "Factually, you're discussing "stamp collecting" because this article mentions "food stamps"."

      Your assumptions aren't facts. Factually, I mentioned it because you said it would be irrelevant, yet it has to be relevant since you allow it to be considered a "religion".

      "Perhaps, but that doesn't change the FACT that so does atheism."

      Your contortions don't constitute any "FACT". But I do find it funny that you've equated your sacred beliefs to a simplistic game like rock/paper/scissors. You didn't seem to realize you were doing that.

      "I haven't changed my stance."

      It's not true just because you say so. Your comments about me supposedly saying that hockey is actually a religion are there for all to see, while now you've embraced that very position.

      "Except you have expressed that atheism is very important to you."

      Where was that, exactly?

      "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:"

      Interestingly enough, the NIV reads that as "scroll". I'm pretty sure that the entire Bible wasn't supposed to be a "scroll", but I invite you to show how that would make sense within the text.

      "Let me add on to my previous comment. God is saying "the prophecy of this book". That obviously refers to Revelation being the "prophecy" and the Bible being "this book"."

      You do know that Revelation is a book of the Bible, right? Revelation is the prophecy in question. That term doesn't apply to the entire Bible, and it's not specific enough otherwise. The prophecy from Deuteronomy? The prophecy of Jeremiah? Which one is that singular term supposed to designate? Also, the plagues are in Revelation. Since "written in this book" applies to those plagues, "this book" would be Revelation.

      "And the "plagues" will be added. It doesn't say they HAVE been added. It says they WILL be added."

      You said that the Catholic church changed the Bible. The prophecy, as you claim, is if that happens, then the plagues will be added to whoever altered the book. So, according to you, the plagues should have been released upon those that changed the Bible already.

      Did you have any trouble following that?

      Delete
    73. What do you call it, specifically?

      I call it a book.


      You would have to be dead in order to suffer the plagues that were released upon the Earth?

      No, I will have to be dead in order to ask God (in His presence) why they are getting away with that. Besides, you ignored the word "will". Not "were". One word is future tense, the other past tense. But, being the stickler for proper english, you should already know that. Being the troll you are, you probably ignored it on purpose.


      You didn't seem to realize you were doing that.

      I know exactly what you're doing. That's what proves my point ... using YOUR argument. Now, you don't like the definition of religion, huh? Aww, too bad for you. Maybe next time you won't ask the stupid questions when you don't know the factual answers.


      Interestingly enough, the NIV reads that as "scroll".

      Like I said in the other article, you choose whatever Bible makes you happy. I'm sure you'll find one that says homosexuality is ok, too. Do whatever it takes to ignore the fact you are wrong again.


      Which one is that singular term supposed to designate?

      I've already told you the answer to that. The Bible is the book. You should do a 'word study' of all the prophecies and get back with me about which actual prophecy is being discussed in that verse. Perhaps I'm wrong and it means ANY of the prophecies. Why don't you research it and let me know. Can you do that?


      So, according to you, the plagues should have been released upon those that changed the Bible already.

      No, that's not according to me. I specifically said they "will". Your lack of reading comprehension skills are glaring, right now.


      Did you have any trouble following that?

      Yes, I had a bit of trouble understanding your inexcusable twisting of what I said in order to fit your asinine whines.

      Delete
    74. "I call it a book."

      That's your specific term for the supposedly altered Bible?

      "No, I will have to be dead in order to ask God (in His presence) why they are getting away with that."

      You said above that you didn't know if they had been set upon the Catholic church, so you didn't know that they were "getting away" with anything.

      "That's what proves my point ... using YOUR argument."

      It's obviously not my argument, since I said your standard was absurd.

      "Now, you don't like the definition of religion, huh?"

      That doesn't even make sense. Like: "to wish to have : want (would like a drink)" (Merriam-Webster.com) I don't "wish to have" the definition, because I already have it. It's not something to possess, anyway. Maybe you should master the meanings of basic words such as like before you work your way up to religion.

      "Like I said in the other article, you choose whatever Bible makes you happy."

      The point would be that people who actually analyze the Bible have determined that "scroll" is an appropriate term there, which would indicate that your claim that it refers to the entire Bible may not be completely accurate.

      "I've already told you the answer to that."
      "You should do a 'word study' of all the prophecies and get back with me about which actual prophecy is being discussed in that verse."

      If I need to do research, then you didn't answer the question. I said prophecy, not book.

      "Why don't you research it and let me know.[sic]"

      How did that comment go, again? Oh, right: "Not knowing about religion is really hampering your ability to argue this subject."

      "I specifically said they "will"."

      Which is conditional, based on whether the Bible is ever changed. That's according to you. Also, you: "They've created their own version." Note that "created" is past tense.

      Is it adding up for you, yet?

      I'll help you out even more, just in case. Let's say your cell phone contract states that if you use a certain amount of data on your plan, you will be charged twenty dollars for exceeding your limit. Then, you exceed that limit. When your bill is taken from your bank account, do you rant and rave because you were told "will", and that's "future tense"?

      "Yes, I had a bit of trouble understanding your inexcusable twisting of what I said in order to fit your asinine whines."

      Show how anything you said was twisted.

      Delete
    75. That's your specific term for the supposedly altered Bible?

      No, that's my term for a book. I don't consider it a Bible, it's a regular book.


      You said above that you didn't know if they had been set upon the Catholic church, so you didn't(sic) know that they were "getting away" with anything.

      Proper terminology would be "don't", not "didn't". You're welcome in advance.


      It's obviously not my argument, since I said your standard was absurd.

      Then why are you still making the same argument? Are you absurd?


      The point would be that people who actually analyze the Bible have determined that "scroll" is an appropriate term there, which would indicate that your claim that it refers to the entire Bible may not be completely accurate.

      Which "people"? Your atheist friends? If your atheist friends are anything like you, they lie too often to believe anyway.


      That's according to you.

      No. That's according to the Bible. I've already brought the verse that says that and you even reposted it. So, you are lying by saying it is according to me. More lies by the troll.


      Is it adding up for you, yet?

      Oh yeah. I've known you were a liar from the days I posted at mmfa. The thing that got added in is that you are a troll.


      When your bill is taken from your bank account, do you rant and rave because you were told "will", and that's "future tense"?

      No I would not rant and rave because I was told what will happen if I do as you say. You see how that works? Punishment IS handed out to those who deserve it. And, like in your analogy, it all happens in the future.
      It's the people who want to break the rules and still expect to get a reward who really are in for a surprise. Just like your analogy. Thanks for bringing that one. I was wondering how to express that with something your troll-like mind could understand.


      Show how anything you said was twisted.

      Here's one instance (how many do you want?): "But I do find it funny that you've equated your sacred beliefs to a simplistic game like rock/paper/scissors."

      Delete
    76. "I don't consider it a Bible, it's a regular book."

      Because your bias trumps objective reality: "3 Bible; capitalized : a copy or an edition of the Bible" And, to get yet another step ahead of you: "Edition; 1 a : the form or version in which a text is published (a paperback edition) (the German edition)" (Both from MerriamWebster.com)

      "Proper terminology would be "don't", not "didn't"."

      No, it wouldn't. I'm talking about your previous comment. Your explanation is inconsistent, because you didn't know that the Catholic church was getting away with something when you said "I can't say if they have be [sic] "set upon the Catholic church"." As for "proper", note the brackets that I used, as opposed to your parentheses.

      "Then why are you still making the same argument?"

      Where did I make the "same" argument?

      "Your atheist friends?"

      Your theory is that atheists published a book consisting of creationism, miracles, prophecies, and directives from a supreme deity, but then clumsily tipped their hand as infidels when they inconvenienced your claim? Yes, William, the world is clearly conspiring against you. Be very afraid.

      "That's according to the Bible."

      No, that's according to you. Check your own posts: "Jesus Christ says not to add to or take away from the Bible. They have done that. That means they are against the Word of God." Even if the Bible referred to itself in its entirety, and that is clearly hard to justify, the point is that you have said that Catholics have changed the Bible, and also that anyone who changes the Bible will have the plagues set upon them. So, that would have to mean that either those plagues were set upon them, or the prophecy is false. Or, of course, that your claim is nonsense. If you can't show any record of such dramatic punishments, then you're pretty much stuck between saying that the Bible is wrong, or that you are. I'm willing to bet that you'll throw the Bible under the bus, once it comes to that.

      "And, like in your analogy, it all happens in the future."

      Sunday's future is Tuesday's past. If things perpetually remain in the future, then they never happen. On that note, if you tell your child that you will punish them for misbehaving, then they meet your standards for punishment, then you either have to apply the punishment (meaning it's no longer in the future), or you don't (in which case punishment is not handed out to those who deserve it). Either way, at least one of your statements has to be proven false.

      Incidentally, my analogy is not all "in the future". It would be "will you rant and rave", not "do you rant and rave". You're welcome in advance.

      "Thanks for bringing that one."

      No, thank you. You admitted that the Catholic church should have been punished with plagues, yet you have zero knowledge of that happening. That's either a false argument or a stunning lack of knowledge about religion on your part, and you lose either way.

      "Here's one instance"

      I notice a distinct lack of explanation for your complaint. Do you actually have some reason to object to that, or are your feelings hurt? If it's the former, be specific.

      Delete
    77. So, that would have to mean that either those plagues were set upon them, or the prophecy is false.

      Wow, you are really floundering. The Bible says "will" not "has been". Does your dictionary tell you what "will" means? Maybe you should check that word out before you continue this whine of yours. And, make sure you get those tissues back from Eddie.


      I'm willing to bet that you'll throw the Bible under the bus, once it comes to that.

      Why would I do that? Check the sleeves of your shirt ... you're reaching so much that I think your elbows are showing. Ah ha ha ha


      You admitted that the Catholic church should have been punished with plagues, yet you have zero knowledge of that happening.

      Now you're just being plain stupid. The Bible says "will" not "have been". Good thing you're an atheist, at least you have an excuse for knowing nothing of the Bible and how to read it.


      Do you actually have some reason to object to that, or are your feelings hurt?

      I'm pretty sure you didn't ask if I "object" to it. You merely asked to give you an example of it happening. My feelings aren't hurt, I EXPECT you to act that way. That is your proven and repetitive behavior.

      Delete
    78. "The Bible says "will" not "has been"."

      The concept you're pretending not to grasp is commonly known as "time". The whole idea of a prophetic statement is that it will become true, and after that point in time it has become true. If it's not supposed to ever happen, then it's not much of a challenge to come up with a such a "prophecy", and certainly not noteworthy in any holy text.

      "Why would I do that?"

      Because your ego seems much more important to you than your claimed religious beliefs.

      "The Bible says "will" not "have been"."

      Under what conditions did you say the prophecy would become true?

      "I'm pretty sure you didn't ask if I "object" to it."

      I'm pretty sure that if you say that I'm twisting your words, you're objecting to that claimed behavior. Feel free to explain how you believe otherwise, especially since you amplified it with "inexcusable". And since you can't explain what's supposedly wrong with the quote you brought, the only other possibility is an emotional reaction on your part.

      You didn't have any further theories about atheists publishing Bibles? Or are you still working out all the intricate details that your comments are known for? Note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    79. The concept you're pretending not to grasp is commonly known as "time". The whole idea of a prophetic statement is that it will become true, and after that point in time it has become true.

      Umm, I think you're the one who is letting that "grasp" escape you. "Time" is still taking place, you know. I take it you didn't look up the word "will" and are continuing to post on the assumption that when something "will" happen that means it must have already happened. Perhaps you should stop using M-W as a dictionary. You don't like their definitions when they don't work in your favor. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?


      Under what conditions did you say the prophecy would become true?

      Let's use YOUR standards for this one ... what are you telling me I think they are? That's your usual procedure, I say something, then you twist it around to suit your own purpose. Tell ME what I am saying.


      Delete
    80. ""Time" is still taking place, you know."

      Obviously a strong point in my favor. If time stood still, then "will" would never change. As it is, though, someone who believed that mankind "will not see the year 2000" back in 1999 has been proven wrong.

      "I take it you didn't look up the word "will" and are continuing to post on the assumption that when something "will" happen that means it must have already happened."

      You seem to be saying that the word "will", even when written ages ago, means that it couldn't have possibly happened since that time. That's quite inconsistent with the idea of a prediction, and especially a prediction that's supposed to be divine in origin.

      "Let's use YOUR standards for this one ... what are you telling me I think they are?"

      You don't remember what you wrote? Here:"Jesus Christ says not to add to or take away from the Bible." And:""Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"
      Let me add on to my previous comment. God is saying "the prophecy of this book". That obviously refers to Revelation being the "prophecy" and the Bible being "this book". And the "plagues" will be added."

      So, it would seem that you're saying that if anyone adds or takes away from the Bible, then the conditions would be met. Do you think that's an unreasonable interpretation?

      "That's your usual procedure, I say something, then you twist it around to suit your own purpose."

      If only you could provide a demonstration of how that ever happens, or even make an effort to do so.

      Delete
    81. "That's your usual procedure, I say something, then you twist it around to suit your own purpose."

      I'll add on to that. When I ask for a demonstration, it means including details. Let' try an example.

      You: "You said people in Canada think hockey is a religion."

      The actual phrase: "Hockey is a religion in Canada."

      First, I didn't make any declarations about hockey or Canadians at all (the "you said" part). I noted your source's example, then asked you if you thought hockey was a religion. That was noted at the time, so the excuse of confusion isn't available to you. Second, I never suggested that there was a restriction of the potential perception to "people in Canada". Like I said, I know that Shinto is a religion in Japan, even though I don't live there. Third, it wasn't about anyone thinking that it's a religion. I didn't say that anyone in Canada was declaring "hockey" as their religious preference, as if they thought it was a religion. The changed subject of the sentence along with "think" injected into it doesn't even work the same way. For instance, you would have "Madison Square Garden is an arena in New York" translate to "people in New York think that Madison Square Garden is an arena." You would be making it sound as if Madison Square Garden is actually not an arena, or that it's a belief that varies by location.

      I don't expect anything that thorough from you, but that's how the "twisting" of words should be demonstrated. Let's see what you can do.

      Delete
    82. Do you think that's an unreasonable interpretation?

      No. Has the punishment been handed down? You, yourself, said it would be easy to tell if the Catholic church had been exposed to those punishments. Well, has the punishment been handed down?


      I noted your source's example, then asked you if you thought hockey was a religion.

      And, I answered: no, I don't live in Canada. How could I think it is a religion if I'm not in Canada? As per your views (beliefs). Unless you're trying to say that hockey IS a religion within the Canadian borders. Does the Canadian government know about this religion? If I google religions in Canada, will hockey show up as one?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
      Nope, doesn't show up. You're lying, again.


      Delete
    83. "You, yourself, said it would be easy to tell if the Catholic church had been exposed to those punishments. Well, has the punishment been handed down?"

      Apparently not. And?

      "And, I answered: no, I don't live in Canada. How could I think it is a religion if I'm not in Canada?"

      I know what you asked. What you quoted is regarding your attempt to hold me responsible for your source's example. And your idiotic argument has been debunked multiple times.

      "As per your views (beliefs)."

      What you just said is not consistent with what I've said.

      "Nope, doesn't show up. You're lying, again."

      Hilarious. Let's check your previous comment: "I haven't denied it's a religion, by definition. I have denied living in Canada (or Detroit) therefor it isn't a religion for me. But, to those who live in those areas, as you have pointed out, it is a religion for them."

      Also, since you hinged your claim that atheism is a religion on hockey being one (as an interest which can be considered "very important" to someone), you just shot down your own argument. While not even disputing anything I pointed out about your twisting of my comment or making an attempt to show how I've ever misrepresented you.

      And even better, if you want to say that something not showing up in Wikipedia is proof that it doesn't exist, then there are no such things as "income laws". That may well have been the most self-destruction I've ever seen in a single post. Bravo.

      Delete
    84. Apparently not. And?

      Then the prophecy is still intact. Unlike your continual whining that it should have been done by now. Sheesh, an atheist trying to argue religion is like a troll trying to argue with facts ... it just can't happen. As proven by you.



      I know what you asked. What you quoted is regarding your attempt to hold me responsible for your source's example. And your idiotic argument has been debunked multiple times.

      Well, then shut the fuck up, troll.


      What you just said is not consistent with what I've said.

      No it isn't. Show how so.


      Also, since you hinged your claim that atheism is a religion on hockey being one (as an interest which can be considered "very important" to someone), you just shot down your own argument.

      I hinged my claim on what? What you wrote makes no sense. Please rewrite it so non-trolls can understand it.


      And even better, if you want to say that something not showing up in Wikipedia is proof that it doesn't exist, then there are no such things as "income laws".

      You might as well say there is no law against interstate threats. Because I brought an example of one of those too. Trolls sure are stupid.

      BTW, can YOU find any evidence that Canada considers hockey to be a religion? If you can, I would appreciate you bringing that proof. Or, you can do your exhibited behavior and NOT bring any proof of what you claim.

      Delete
    85. "Then the prophecy is still intact."

      So the next time someone alters the Bible, there will be plagues set upon them. Just not last time. That's an odd sort of prophecy. Maybe your god likes the version of the Bible that the Catholics "created" more than your own version.

      "Well, then shut the fuck up, troll."

      If you don't make irrelevant replies, I won't have to comment on them.

      "No it isn't."

      I'm glad you agree. Seriously, though, citing the dictionary's example isn't asserting what's in the example. And more specific to your idea that you have to live somewhere to determine whether something is a religion or not, I pointed out how that's nonsense several times. So, there aren't any "views" that you can cite to justify your claim.

      "I hinged my claim on what?"

      On hockey being a religion. Since your standard is that any interest which somone can consider "very important" to them is a "religion", then hockey indisputably qualifies. When you then say that it's not a religion because it's not listed as one, then you admit that your standard is invalid. Let me know if you need that dumbed-down any further.

      "You might as well say there is no law against interstate threats."

      Why would I say that? Did you not find that in Wikipedia?

      "Because I brought an example of one of those too."

      But you said that hockey was a religion for people in those areas. So you presented that an example of a religion as well. And you were certainly open to basket-weaving and rock/paper/scissors as religions as well. Those aren't listed on your page either. Why would your Wikipedia link prove anything, if your examples dictate truth through your validation alone?

      And, hilariously enough, atheism isn't listed as a religion in Canada, either. That proves that you were lying, if you claim that your link is evidence.

      "BTW, can YOU find any evidence that Canada considers hockey to be a religion?"

      No, because it's a figurative use of the word. That's why the definition involving what someone considers "very important" was never applicable in the first place, and that was clearly demonstrated by the dictionary's own examples.

      Since you forget so easily: "Note the example: "Hockey is a religion in Canada." Do you think hockey is a religion as well? Now we have a very broad scope for topics, since I could claim that any possible interest or activity is a "religion" to me."

      If you read at a fourth-grade or higher level, you should be able to see that the point is that I don't believe that hockey is a religion, because that standard would make almost anything a valid topic of conversation on an article which mentions religion. It would seem that I don't support that idea.

      But I fully expect you to stomp your feet and continue to demand proof for a "claim" that's the complete opposite of what was actually said.

      Delete
    86. Since your standard is that any interest which somone can consider "very important" to them is a "religion", then hockey indisputably qualifies.

      That's true, but I never claimed it was a religion to me. You did. I simply said I don't live in Canada, so it isn't to me. Now, how are you going to quantify that with the fact that atheism fits within the same definition? BTW, when did I say it was not a religion. I remember showing that it wasn't listed at a wikipedia site. A site which you discounted as unacceptable.


      Why would I say that?

      Because you're a troll.


      But you said that hockey was a religion for people in those areas.

      No. Factually, YOU said that. I said I don't live in those areas, so it isn't to me. More lies or more misrepresentations? Or both coming from the troll?


      And, hilariously enough, atheism isn't listed as a religion in Canada, either.

      Again, I don't live in Canada. And I am not IN Canada. What do I care what is or what isn't a religion to them? The fact remains that atheism fits within the definition of religion. And, you simply can't deny that fact just because you don't like that fact.


      But I fully expect you to stomp your feet and continue to demand proof for a "claim" that's the complete opposite of what was actually said.

      The problem for you is that using your example proves that your religion fits within the defined word of religion. Therefor, according to your standards ... is a religion. It doesn't matter that any number of other activities could be construed as religion also. The simple fact that atheism fits is good enough for me. And fully supported by your preferred dictionary. So, I can say you follow your religion of atheism while I do not believe in it. Just like you say Canadians follow the religion of hockey while I do not believe in that one either. I also don't believe in the religion of catholicism. But, that doesn't mean that there aren't many people who do. Just as described by the definition of religion.

      Come and play again after you get out of the 4th grade and have learned more reading abilities.

      Delete
    87. "That's true, but I never claimed it was a religion to me. You did."

      Wrong. I never said it was a religion to either of us. And it doesn't make any difference whether you say it's a religion to you or not. If you're going to say that my "religion" is atheism because someone else may consider that to a very important interest to them, then anything that you're remotely involved with would be your "religion". So you should enter "auto repair" under "religious affiliation" on any forms that ask for that information.

      "Now, how are you going to quantify that with the fact that atheism fits within the same definition?"

      We're talking about your standard. The entire point is that you can't consider something like hockey to be a "religion". So, the fact that atheism is a "religion" on the same basis is something I'm deliberately highlighting, not something that I'm having trouble addressing. Incidentally, "quantify" is an odd word to use there.

      "BTW, when did I say it was not a religion.[sic]"

      So you didn't say that it wasn't a religion, but you wanted proof that it is a religion? Do you often ask for evidence of things that you are admitting?
      Let's see: "Unless you're trying to say that hockey IS a religion within the Canadian borders. Does the Canadian government know about this religion? If I google religions in Canada, will hockey show up as one?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
      Nope, doesn't show up. You're lying, again."
      Your claim is both:
      a) you never said that hockey is not a religion, and
      b) I'm "lying" because you don't see evidence that it is a religion.
      Further:
      "The troll thinks hockey is a religion."
      "Only a troll would use Canadian Hockey as an example of religion."
      "The troll said hockey is a religion."
      "The troll denied saying it earlier, now the troll is saying hockey is a religion. It is common for trolls to deny then claim the same thing during conversations." (I'm still laughing at you for that one)
      "The troll used "hockey is a religion" as an example. The dictionary fully explains what constitutes a religion. The troll is trying to squirm his/her way out of explaining how atheism does not fit within the parameters given. And, when the troll doesn't even address what is being discussed then he/she is proving themselves to be a troll."
      "So, it is YOU who is saying hockey is a religion in Canada. I certainly have never said that. Is this another of your "beliefs" within the atheist religion?"
      "That makes atheism a religion because it fits the description as you are using it to defend your statement that hockey is a religion."
      I'd say that's enough. Just by itself, the last one prompts the question of why I would need to "defend" what you falsely claimed what my statement that hockey is a religion, if you aren't saying that hockey is not a religion.

      "A site which you discounted as unacceptable."

      How did I do that, exactly? I'm honestly not even seeing what you're misinterpreting for that one.

      "Because you're a troll."

      So the fact that I didn't say that would undermine your claim that I'm a "troll".

      Delete
    88. "No. Factually, YOU said that. I said I don't live in those areas, so it isn't to me."

      No. I never said it was a religion anywhere. I quoted the dictionary, and asked you a question. And: "I haven't denied it's a religion, by definition. I have denied living in Canada (or Detroit) therefor [sic] it isn't a religion for me. But, to those who live in those areas, as you have pointed out, it is a religion for them."
      Again, this is what you just denied: "But you said that hockey was a religion for people in those areas." Your response to that is "No", when you plainly said that hockey was a religion for people in those areas. And your explanation of "I said I don't live in those areas, so it isn't to me." isn't even in conflict with that. You said that it isn't a religion to you, and that it is for some other people. Further, it's not even clear why you're denying that when you already asked when you said that hockey isn't a religion. If you aren't saying that hockey isn't a religion altogether, then it makes no sense for you claim that you didn't say that it was a religion for people in Canada.

      "What do I care what is or what isn't a religion to them?"

      You posted the link about religion in Canada, not me. If you don't care, I have to wonder why you're providing random links.

      "The fact remains that atheism fits within the definition of religion."

      Which definition? If it's the relevant one, then they should be included in your list of religions on your Wikipedia page. That would be a religion according to objective analysis, where everyone respects the term whether they hold the beliefs or not. If you're using the figurative "very important" definition, then you can't say that my "religion" is atheism, any more than I could say that auto repair is a religion to you. That would be something for you to say for yourself, since it's decided on an individual level.

      "The simple fact that atheism fits is good enough for me."

      I'm sure it is. For people who are objective and have critical thinking skills, though, it doesn't. And for that reason, you don't get to push your self-serving views as facts on anyone else.

      "So, I can say you follow your religion of atheism while I do not believe in it. Just like you say Canadians follow the religion of hockey while I do not believe in that one either."

      You can't have it both ways. If you're going to use the same principle for both of those, then either you say that atheism and hockey are both religions, or that they're only "religion" to individuals or groups that fit the definition.

      So, which is it?

      By the way, it's rather odd for you to keep claiming that I'm responsible for the idea of hockey being a religion, since you're also pretending that Merriam-Webster.com is proving your point. If you're not embarrassed by the example they provide, then there's no reason for you to dishonestly attribute it to me.

      "Come and play again after you get out of the 4th grade and have learned more reading abilities."

      People don't learn abilities, they develop them. I knew that by 2nd grade.

      Delete
    89. Wow, you're really rambling now. What happened? You get frustrated?

      Delete
    90. "Wow, you're really rambling now. What happened? You get frustrated?"

      You provided enough lies and idiotic comments for the material that I provided. "Frustrated" would be better demonstrated by having a fit such as you demonstrated earlier.

      I accept your surrender.

      Delete
    91. Except I haven't surrendered. I still have questions that you haven't answered and I demand that you answer them.

      Delete
    92. Not regarding the post you previously responded to, apparently.

      Delete
    93. Yet, you continue to answer them. You must feel intimidated if you continue to answer questions that I demand that you answer.

      Delete
    94. "Yet, you continue to answer them. You must feel intimidated if you continue to answer questions that I demand that you answer."

      I didn't answer your questions about the NSA. You must believe that the supposed intimidation comes and goes in waves, or something.

      It's much more arguable that you abandoning your arguments on this thread is proof of intimidation. That's even more justifiable when considering that you told Eddie that he should get out of the kitchen if he can't stand the heat. That would be your standard, that if one can't handle the pressure, they should simply quit the argument.

      And since you have a strong tendency to engage in projection, it would seem entirely believable that you're currently obsessed with claiming that I'm intimidated in order to coddle your own wounded ego.

      That's just an opinion, of course, based on observing your patterns of behavior. I know it's not as concise as your thought-free assertions of what I "must feel', but yet, I dare to present it before your mighty, fearsome self. Please be merciful, and note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    95. It's much more arguable that you abandoning your arguments on this thread is proof of intimidation.

      I haven't abandon my arguments. They've just run their course and I'm tired of playing your games. If you want to try discussing honestly, I'll be more than happy to reply to honest questions honestly. Since your habit it to lie and twist around what I say, then there really isn't any point to continuing at this time.

      Although, yes, it is quite funny that you say you aren't intimidated, yet you immediately respond to my demands ... as if you really are intimidated. If you were, in fact, not intimidated, then you would ignore my demands. So, climb out of your basement and ask mommy if you can go outside and play.

      Delete
    96. "I haven't abandon [sic] my arguments."

      If you're not pursuing them, then you've abandoned them.

      "They've just run their course and I'm tired of playing your games."

      The truth has no exhaustion point.

      "If you want to try discussing honestly, I'll be more than happy to reply to honest questions honestly."

      I do strive to discuss honestly, and I meet that goal every time. But if you really think that you can help me in that regard, please specify what you're claiming is in any way dishonest about my questions. I eagerly await your feedback.

      "Although, yes, it is quite funny that you say you aren't intimidated, yet you immediately respond to my demands ... as if you really are intimidated."

      Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's "after this, therefore because of this" in Latin. It's a fallacious argument where someone assumes that since one thing follows another, then there must be a cause and effect relationship involved between the two. Your "demands" aren't a factor in my responses. It's not as if I don't reply when you don't make demands, so there's no change to use as evidence of your claim. You haven't altered my behavior, so you can't legitimately argue that you have any effect.

      "If you were, in fact, not intimidated, then you would ignore my demands."

      That sounds as if you want your comments to remain unchallenged. As if by labeling your insane arguments as "demands", you'll convince me to not point out how remarkably insane they are. That would, amusingly, be an attempt at intimidation, and one which I'm clearly not impressed by.

      On the other hand, your demanded that I answer all of your questions. Since I didn't reply to your off-topic NSA questions, I didn't answer all of them. Do you evaluate that as a percentage, as if I'm 90% (or whatever) intimidated, or does that fact completely negate the "intimidated' claim? Or maybe you're simply pretending that I answered all of your questions, since you didn't dare respond to my point above about not answering your NSA questions.

      Delete
    97. That should be "you demanded" in the last paragraph, and I meant to erase "involved" in the fourth response.

      Delete
    98. If you're not pursuing them, then you've abandoned them.

      Is that in your version of the dictionary, too?


      The truth has no exhaustion point.

      How would YOU know? You haven't tried that method, yet.


      Your "demands" aren't a factor in my responses.

      Yes, they are. That's English for 'yes they are'.


      On the other hand, your(sic) demanded that I answer all of your questions.

      Incorrect usage of "your".


      Since I didn't reply to your off-topic NSA questions, I didn't answer all of them.

      You mean you refuse to comment on your hypocrisy?

      Delete
    99. "Is that in your version of the dictionary, too?"

      It's almost certain to be in every version of the dictionary. Did you have a point?

      "How would YOU know?"

      Because you've never demonstrated a lie on my part. So either I'm very honest, or you're completely incompetent.

      "Yes, they are."

      I seem to remember you making several comments about me supposedly pretending to be "psychic". How does that fit in with you claiming to be able to read minds?

      "That's English for 'yes they are'."

      At least you said one true thing in this post. That's better than usual.

      "Incorrect usage of "your"."

      Incorrect usage of "usage", as well as parentheses. "Your" was a leftover from editing, and I noted it before you did.

      "You mean you refuse to comment on your hypocrisy?"

      Do you really think you've proven "hypocrisy" on a topic that I haven't discussed at all? That sounds like more mind-reading, but feel free to explain yourself.

      Delete
    100. It's almost certain to be in every version of the dictionary. Did you have a point?

      But, you fail to bring any proof of your supposed fact. That's the point.


      Because you've never demonstrated a lie on my part. So either I'm very honest, or you're completely incompetent.

      You've never admitted your lies. I've demonstrated all the lies that I claimed you made to be lies.


      That sounds like more mind-reading, but feel free to explain yourself.

      It sounds that way, doesn't it? Too bad it's more truth speaking than mind reading.

      Delete
    101. "But, you fail to bring any proof of your supposed fact. That's the point."

      You didn't ask to see it. Since it's such common knowledge, I thought you were just being petulant. But here: "Abandon: 5 b: to cease intending or attempting to perform (abandoned the escape)".

      "You've never admitted your lies. I've demonstrated all the lies that I claimed you made to be lies."

      No, you've accused me of lying. You've never demonstrated anything.

      "It sounds that way, doesn't it? Too bad it's more truth speaking than mind reading."

      Your assumptions aren't "truth". You can hardly complain that I didn't provide you with a definition of a common word while saying "you fail to bring any proof", and then claim that there's some "hypocrisy" regarding political views you have zero knowledge about. Those are both in the same post, and only a few sentences apart. I'm genuinely curious how you could have sent that out without catching such a glaring double standard.

      Delete
    102. You didn't ask to see it.

      I just asked you for the definition of the word you were using. Now, I'm supposed to explain, for you, what you are claiming? Ok, that wasn't unexpected from the troll who doesn't defend his own statements, but relies on others to do it for him.
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abandon
      I especially like #2. But, I haven't done any of them, have I?
      Or, we can use your preferred dictionary:
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abandon
      Again, #2 is a good one. However, I have done none of those either.

      So ... if you think you can explain your expressed thinking that because I'm not "pursuing" my arguments it means I have "abandon" them, you're more than welcome to try.


      Your assumptions aren't "truth".

      In this instance they are. Prove me wrong. I demand it!


      regarding political views you have zero knowledge about

      Zero knowledge about? Are you kidding me? No, I guess you wouldn't be. You're very good at lying.

      Delete
    103. "I just asked you for the definition of the word you were using."

      No, you did not ask for anything. Go back and read your own words.

      "Now, I'm supposed to explain, for you, what you are claiming?"

      You're supposed to either understand basic English vocabulary, or look up words you're uncertain of. I'm not the Library help desk. If you're genuinely disputing the word, then you should be more specific as to how it doesn't apply.

      "Again, #2 is a good one. However, I have done none of those either."

      Why does the definition I provided not work, in your opinion? You've ceased your attempts at that argument, so you've abandoned them.

      "In this instance they are."

      No, assumptions are never "truth", as you're using the word. That would be something which is evidenced by fact. Even assumptions that turn out to be accurate were not "truth" before the relevant facts were established.

      "Prove me wrong."

      The burden of proof is on you. Your claim is your responsibility, not mine.

      "I demand it!"

      I can't imagine a better way for you to destroy your own "intimidation" claim than to order me to prove that your baseless assumptions are wrong. That's simply never going to happen.

      "Zero knowledge about? Are you kidding me?"

      I'm obviously not kidding. You already admitted that you were making an assumption, so it's not at all clear what you're pretending to be indignant over.

      Delete
    104. Why does the definition I provided not work, in your opinion? You've ceased your attempts at that argument, so you've abandoned them.

      Umm, I'm continuing the argument, therefor it has not been abandoned. Abandoned ONLY counts if the argument never continues. Re-read the definition, if you need (apparently, you do).


      That's simply never going to happen.

      So, you're abandoning your argument.


      Why does the definition I provided not work, in your opinion?

      I'm not trying to escape. Don't blame me for you lack of intelligence. If I'm still arguing, I haven't abandoned anything, troll.

      Delete
    105. "Umm, I'm continuing the argument, therefor [sic] it has not been abandoned."

      We're not talking about the entire thread.

      "So, you're abandoning your argument."

      Where did I say that I could or would prove you wrong? You must have been hallucinating in order to suggest that I said anything even remotely like that.

      "I'm not trying to escape."

      Nobody applied the word "escape" to you. As for what you've abandoned, scroll up and read if you've really forgotten this so quickly. You dropped your "hockey/atheism" argument and said that it had "run its course". Until you pursue it again, you've abandoned it. If you don't like that being pointed out to you, then you should make sensible arguments that you don't have to twist yourself into knots to defend and finally have to run away from.

      Incidentally, you quoted and responded to the same sentence twice in one post.

      "If I'm still arguing, I haven't abandoned anything, troll."

      Then you can't legitimately say that I'm abandoning anything, since I'm still posting. But, since you want to say that not pursuing your desired argument is "abandoning" on my part, then you dropping your claims above would also count as "abandoning". So, you'll just have to fix your inconsistency and get back to me.

      Delete
    106. We're not talking about the entire thread.

      Irrelevant.


      Nobody applied the word "escape" to you.

      You did, right here: "But here: "Abandon: 5 b: to cease intending or attempting to perform (abandoned the escape)".". You brought a definition and example that says escape in it. Obviously, your definition is intended to show I am trying to escape something, as opposed to a correct usage of the word you're trying to define.
      Is that how you do things? That actions sure seems kind of counterproductive.


      Incidentally, you quoted and responded to the same sentence twice in one post.

      Is that your newest whine? If I don't reply any further to this newest whine of yours am I abandoning my argument? Is that the actions you want me to take?

      I demand that you answer my questions, if you don't do that actions, then you show you are intimidated by me.

      Delete
    107. Now, are you finally going to prove your claim that the Church doesn't give an equal amount (of taxes theoretically owed) back to the community? Or have you abandon your flawed argument?

      Delete
    108. "Irrelevant."

      Considering that you're pretending that we are talking about the entire thread, it's completely relevant.

      "You brought a definition and example that says escape in it."

      The example uses that word. It applies to the intended meaning itself, not to specific people who are giving up on other things.

      "Obviously, your definition is intended to show I am trying to escape something, as opposed to a correct usage of the word you're trying to define."

      So now, the dictionary is part of a conspiracy against you? The desperation in your comments is palpable. If we can extract ourselves from your lunacy for a moment, the point would be that you've ceased attempting to make your point above. That fits the definition perfectly.

      "That [sic] actions sure seems kind of counterproductive."

      That would be "those actions".

      "Is that your newest whine?"

      No, it's an observation of behavior that makes you appear addlebrained. I also love how you use "whine" right after crying about how the example of a dictionary definition supposedly has something to do with you. Simply classic.

      "If I don't reply any further to this newest whine of yours am I abandoning my argument?"

      How would that be possible, according to you, if you're still posting on the thread itself? You haven't fixed your glaring inconsistency on that. I really don't care what you do about your redundant quotes, I was simply letting you know for your own benefit. Your defensive posturing is unnecessary, amusing as it may be.

      "Now, are you finally going to prove your claim that the Church doesn't give an equal amount (of taxes theoretically owed) back to the community?"

      My claim is that your assumptions are baseless and can't be used as evidence which others are supposed to treat as credible. If you can link to the post where I promised to prove that churches don't provide whatever amount of money in services, then we can proceed from there. Until that moment, the burden of proof remains squarely on your shoulders.

      Also, until that moment, your misrepresentation of my argument constitutes a lie on your part. It's been explained to you before, so you have no excuse.

      Delete
    109. That would be "those actions".

      Factually, it would be "that action". See? You can't even perform spelling corrections honestly. You twist what I say in order to prove your illogical arguments.


      My claim is that your assumptions are baseless and can't be used as evidence which others are supposed to treat as credible.

      If that's the standard you're going to apply, then this article is based on baseless assumptions and cannot be treated as credible by others. That means the Church hypothetically owing taxes is based on a false premise with no credible evidence. The only possible reason it could have been brought would be to denigrate organized religion as a whole. Which is what I said in my very first post. I've been right this entire time.

      And since you accept the numbers brought by the graphic in this article (Did you see the graphic in the article?), you have been basing your arguments on baseless assumptions. Is that a double standard (you do, but, I'm not allowed to)? Or would that be hypocrisy (you're allowed to accept baseless assumptions, I am not)?

      Delete
    110. That would be "those actions".

      If you don't agree with my previous explanation, we can go with this one: since you corrected my usage of "actions", then you are admitting that action and actions are different words with different meanings / usages.
      The funny thing is you have never been able to show where or how someone / anyone cannot be interchangeable with each other using the same context.
      You just did show that action and actions cannot be interchanged using the same context. Ooops, I'll bet you didn't think that one through, huh?

      Delete
    111. "Factually, it would be "that action"."

      Not according to the sentence that precedes it. That clearly denotes behavior. Although, you would have to change "seems" as well, to make the entire sentence consistent.

      "If that's the standard you're going to apply, then this article is based on baseless assumptions and cannot be treated as credible by others."

      Eddie provided a source which put the number at 71 billion. I didn't see you dispute that, but cite your disagreement if there was any. Besides that, claiming wrongful behavior doesn't justify it for you. If that was really your point, then you should just say so and leave it at that, as opposed to pretending that you have a legitimate argument and telling me that I have to prove otherwise. You're responsible for your own actions.

      "The only possible reason it could have been brought would be to denigrate organized religion as a whole."

      Except for concern for the needy, naturally. That would be a reason, until you prove it's not "possible". And how in the hell does it denigrate organized religion as a whole, anyway? If your wife files joint tax returns and shortchanges you three years in a row, it's not insulting her as a person to suggest trying something different. If people get comfort from their religious establishments, then the job is fulfilled. Taking care of the nation's poverty issue is a completely different matter. If you are so consumed with pride that you would even dare to risk a single person going hungry and/or homeless so you don't feel that the Church is being slighted, you really need to brush up on your Jesus quotes. Today might be a good day for that.

      "And since you accept the numbers brought by the graphic in this article (Did you see the graphic in the article?), you have been basing your arguments on baseless assumptions."

      What are you citing for that? It seems to me that I've repeatedly referred to the number that you asserted that churches provide in services. That should be established in your mind, considering how many times you've asked me in vain for that number.

      "Is that a double standard (you do, but, I'm not allowed to)?"

      In your scenario, would there be a notable similarity between a) accepting numbers that don't seem to be out of the range of credibility and b) asserting a number based on your own absurd assumptions? How would they be comparable?

      "If you don't agree with my previous explanation, we can go with this one: since you corrected my usage of "actions", then you are admitting that action and actions are different words with different meanings / usages."

      Or, more obviously, that you can't mix singular and plural phrasing together. Besides, "action" has multiple meanings where the plural of "actions" would not be a synonym of "behavior". That's not the issue. Your usage is consistent with "behavior", so you're not creating any distinction between the two. So, either that's your error by saying "action" instead of "actions", or you need to show how your definition is significantly different from "behavior".

      "The funny thing is you have never been able to show where or how someone / anyone cannot be interchangeable with each other using the same context."

      The funny thing is that I have. You didn't respond.

      "You just did show that action and actions cannot be interchanged using the same context."

      You're confusing "context" with "syntax". You can swap out "that behavior" with "those actions" and easily keep the same meaning for the sentence. But you can't replace "behavior" in order to end up with "that actions" without creating a syntax error.

      Delete
    112. Not according to the sentence that precedes it.

      Obviously, that isn't true, because it is a sentence that stands on it's own (unrelated to the previous paragraph): "I demand that you answer my questions, if you don't do that actions, then you show you are intimidated by me.". You fail basic reading comprehension. "That" action would be "answer". Your dishonest reply gives me more ammo for the opinion I've formed because of you continual lying and misleading.


      Eddie provided a source which put the number at 71 billion.

      I used a number to support my position FROM Eddies source, why is Eddies number acceptable, but my number is considered baseless assumptions when both come from the same source?


      Except for concern for the needy, naturally.

      If that was true he would have discussed the inefficiency of the US government in providing for it's citizens, instead of whining about those who actually do help. American citizens are already paying 20+% of their income on taxes, how much more do you expect us to pay before the government can perform their duties?


      Today might be a good day for that.

      Why would today be any different than any other day? Do you not understand the concept of Christianity? Do you even know what today is? Or (ah ha ha) the significance of it? This should be funny to see you flounder around with answering any of those questions.


      What are you citing for that?

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1396708456957#c6199144886171762333

      When I asked you: "How much do you think it would cost to eliminate ALL homeless and hungry people in the US?"
      you said: "Did you see the graphic in the article?".
      Ooops, you thought I couldn't work a computer and look things up that you have said? That would be YOU agreeing with the numbers from the graphics. Now, let me ask again, is that a double standard or is it hypocrisy? Because MY numbers came from the same source that Eddie brought. And you are saying my numbers are baseless assumptions.


      The funny thing is that I have.

      Do you have a link to that explanation? I just don't seem to remember you EVER bringing that evidence.


      You're confusing "context" with "syntax".

      Give me an example where "someone" cannot swap out with "anyone". And, I meant context. I really don't care what you call it. You have been proven to lie and mislead often, so your insistence on anything is irrelevant.




      Delete
    113. "Obviously, that isn't true, because it is a sentence that stands on it's [sic] own (unrelated to the previous paragraph):"

      You're looking in the wrong place. This is the sentence I was citing: "Is that how you do things?"

      "I used a number to support my position FROM Eddies [sic] source, why is Eddies [sic] number acceptable, but my number is considered baseless assumptions when both come from the same source?"

      You can take a number from the most credible source imaginable, that doesn't mean you can make bizarre extrapolations from it.

      "If that was true he would have discussed the inefficiency of the US government in providing for it's [sic] citizens, instead of whining about those who actually do help."

      You're assuming that Eddie writes from your perspective. Others can express genuine sentiments without using your mindset.

      "Why would today be any different than any other day?"

      Because it's Easter. It's supposed to have something to do with Jesus, the last I heard.

      "Do you even know what today is?"

      Yes, which is why the phrase "Jesus quotes" seemed especially appropriate study material for you. I hope you've pieced all this together by this point.

      "When I asked you: "How much do you think it would cost to eliminate ALL homeless and hungry people in the US?""

      Here's the full paragraph: "Did you see the graphic in the article? That's pretty obviously the frame of reference here. If you're disputing the figures there, you should probably provide some to replace them."
      It's pretty difficult for you to claim that I was testifying to that figure when I merely pointed to it as the "frame of reference here" and invited you to provide your own number.

      "Now, let me ask again, is that a double standard or is it hypocrisy?"

      That's an odd distinction. It's neither, of course, and you can refer to my previous post to see why.

      "Do you have a link to that explanation?"

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-kid-who-made-this-has-future-in.html?showComment=1397772451926#c4470097855318232521

      "Give me an example where "someone" cannot swap out with "anyone"."

      Check the link. Also, you're shifting arguments. You were talking about "action" and "actions".

      "And, I meant context. I really don't care what you call it."

      Then you're ignorant. Creating a disagreement between singular and plural words, which is the crux of your asinine "that actions" comment, is a matter of syntax. You can either educate yourself or ask for clarification, but you're not going to get anywhere by pretending that I'm really talking about context.

      Delete
    114. You're looking in the wrong place. This is the sentence I was citing: "Is that how you do things?"

      It's pretty clear what you were citing. Lying won't get you out of that one. What you NOW claim you were citing isn't even the preceding sentence. This is a clear case of you lying to get out of being caught misleading. Fortunately, Jesus died on the Cross and shed His blood to pay for your sins. He rose on the third day and you now have the opportunity to repent, ask forgiveness and believe in Him. Do this and you will join Him in Heaven some day. Don't do this and you will spend eternity in the fiery pit. I don't know you, so perhaps you would prefer the fiery pit. I'm just helping you find a better way.


      You can take a number from the most credible source imaginable, that doesn't mean you can make bizarre extrapolations from it.

      Deductive reasoning isn't considered "bizarre extrapolations".


      You're assuming that Eddie writes from your perspective.

      Perhaps he does. He mentions the current "inefficiency and ineffective solutions" in his initial narrative. That can only mean the government, since it isn't the responsibility of the Church to provide the services he is discussing in the graphic. It is the governments responsibility to provide those services for it's citizens. The Church tries to provide help to those who ask for it and aren't getting what they need from the government. Heck, they even help those who don't get help from the government. They do this to help the community become more of a community. They don't demand that you believe in God or anything like that. They do it to help.


      Because it's Easter. It's supposed to have something to do with Jesus, the last I heard.

      Every day has something to do with Jesus. I didn't think you could answer that one. But, your answer wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. Close though.


      Then you're ignorant.

      Ad hominem?


      You were talking about "action" and "actions".

      Well, your provided link goes to your supposition that someone isn't interchangeable with anyone. Are you lying, yet again? And, since anyone and someone fits in each use you brought as an example you have, again, lost this argument.

      Delete
    115. "It's pretty clear what you were citing."

      It really is. Here's what I quoted from you:"That [sic] actions sure seems kind of counterproductive."

      "What you NOW claim you were citing isn't even the preceding sentence."

      It's in the preceding sentence from what I quoted. Like this: "Is that how you do things? That [sic] actions sure seems kind of counterproductive."

      "This is a clear case of you lying to get out of being caught misleading."

      It's actually a clear case of you looking at the wrong quote and then lacking the personal courage to admit your error. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course.

      "Deductive reasoning isn't considered "bizarre extrapolations"."

      Your bizarre extrapolations aren't "deductive reasoning". What were your general statements that you were using, again? You never did answer that.

      "He mentions the current "inefficiency and ineffective solutions" in his initial narrative. That can only mean the government, since it isn't the responsibility of the Church to provide the services he is discussing in the graphic."

      Except, of course, that he's directly contrasting that with conservatives hating welfare. He also says "When the best thing you can say about organized religion is that it is a highly inefficient way to deal with poverty?" That would mean he's talking about organized religion when he mentioned "inefficiency and ineffective solutions" at the start. So, outside of the actual text of the article, you almost had an argument there.

      "Every day has something to do with Jesus."

      Easter more so than other days. You seem to be having trouble grasping the element of understatement.

      "Ad hominem?"

      No, a completely justifiable assessment. That's even more clear since you didn't feel up to the task of showing how "syntax" didn't apply.

      "Well, your provided link goes to your supposition that someone isn't interchangeable with anyone."

      You're misusing "supposition", for starters. And the link is there because you asked for it. The other part of the conversation went like this;
      You: "You just did show that action and actions cannot be interchanged using the same context."
      Me: "You're confusing "context" with "syntax". You can swap out "that behavior" with "those actions" and easily keep the same meaning for the sentence. But you can't replace "behavior" in order to end up with "that actions" without creating a syntax error."
      You, after quoting from that paragraph: "Give me an example where "someone" cannot swap out with "anyone"."
      See what you did, there? You started out with "action" and "actions", then switched.

      "Are you lying, yet again?"

      That would require having lied before, so obviously not. Even more clearly, you lack the ability to scroll up and make sure you know what the hell you're talking about before posting.

      "And, since anyone and someone fits in each use you brought as an example you have, again, lost this argument."

      Sorry, your hollow denials aren't worth anything. You would actually have to elaborate on that in order to even hope to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    116. Your bizarre extrapolations aren't "deductive reasoning".

      Your opinion doesn't count. Lying troll.


      Except, of course, that he's directly contrasting that with conservatives hating welfare.

      He could be referring to how liberals insist on excessive government assistance in spite of how inefficient the government is and that is why conservatives hate it so much. But, since Eddie no longer posts, we will never know the truth and you and I are just assuming what is being meant by his crazy statements.


      Easter more so than other days.

      Really? Considering you are NOT a Christian, how are you qualified to say that? What does the Bible say that makes Easter more important than any other day? Why is it more important than today? Why more than last Friday? Why more than next Tuesday?


      You're misusing "supposition", for starters.

      I can always tell when I've won an argument ... you lead your answer off with a grammar correction. Thank you, lying troll.


      That would require having lied before, so obviously not.

      Considering you have admitted to lying, in another article, you will forever be linked to being a proven, habitual, unrepentant liar. So sorry and too bad for you troll


      Delete
    117. Easter more so than other days.

      I thought about what I said and I decided to give you some help. Are you alive, today? Is today more important than yesterday? If you are alive tomorrow, will that day be more important than today?
      And, what trumps ALL of that is: what does "glorious day" mean in the Bible?

      I really hope you have some kind of answer for any of those questions. I, personally, think you will ignore them and mention some kind of grammar error.

      Delete
    118. "Your opinion doesn't count."

      Neither does objective reality, as far as you're concerned. If you can't explain how what you did is anything like "deductive reasoning", then you can't make that claim.

      "He could be referring to how liberals insist on excessive government assistance in spite of how inefficient the government is and that is why conservatives hate it so much."

      Except that he clearly referred to private charity as "inefficient", so that's not likely to be part of the contrast.

      "Really? Considering you are NOT a Christian, how are you qualified to say that?"

      Because it's a recognized holiday based on Jesus. When you show how every other day of the year is a recognized holiday based on Jesus, then you'll have a point.

      "Why is it more important than today?"

      You: "Do you even know what today is? Or (ah ha ha) the significance of it?"
      So, you want to point to the significance of Easter, but then want to suggest that it's not more important than any other day. That was a rather stupid thing for you to ask, then. Maybe you should pick a viewpoint and stick with it, so you're not arguing with yourself as much.

      "I can always tell when I've won an argument ... you lead your answer off with a grammar correction."

      Or, more likely, you're using the wrong word. You don't get to mislabel my arguments based on the premise that correcting you somehow signals defeat, because you're still accountable for what you say.

      "Considering you have admitted to lying, in another article, you will forever be linked to being a proven, habitual, unrepentant liar."

      That would be a lie on your part, of course, since I didn't admit to any such thing.

      I notice that you didn't comment on your "clear case" of my supposed lying, which you seemed so confident about in your previous post. What happened?

      Delete
    119. "Are you alive, today? Is today more important than yesterday? If you are alive tomorrow, will that day be more important than today?"

      In what way would "important" be determined there? That's vague to the point of being meaningless.

      "And, what trumps ALL of that is: what does "glorious day" mean in the Bible?"

      The reference would be regarding the second coming. And?

      Delete
    120. The reference would be regarding the second coming. And?

      You're close. Would that day be more important than any other day?

      Delete
    121. "You're close. Would that day be more important than any other day?"

      This would all be assuming that you believe in Jesus as savior. To you, I would have to think that day would be more important.

      Is your point supposed to be that Easter doesn't have more to do with Jesus than the second coming? Because I don't see that day listed on the calendar. And since you yourself love to stress the fact that I'm not a Christian, you couldn't possibly take my words as inclusive of any predicted future event based on those beliefs.

      But, hopefully, you have something more sensible to demonstrate. I'm certainly not counting on it, but I can always hope.

      Delete
    122. Is your point supposed to be that Easter doesn't have more to do with Jesus than the second coming?

      How could Easter have more to do with Jesus Christ Our Lord than the "glorious day" that is discussed in the Bible? Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus Christ Our Lord, the "glorious day" is about when Jesus Christ Our Lord returns to rid all evil. Has that happened, yet? I can honestly say: not yet. That's why that day has more to do with Jesus Christ Our Lord than any other day, to all Christians. Myself, included. And since you said Easter has more to do with Jesus than any other day, you can't be talking about non-Christians. Non-Christians wouldn't even consider Easter an important day.
      Just thought I'd help you out a little. You're welcome, in advance.


      Because I don't see that day listed on the calendar.

      Do you see the day when a thief in the night enters your house on the calender either? I thought I'd get a good laugh out of your attempted explanation.

      Delete
    123. "That's why that day has more to do with Jesus Christ Our Lord than any other day, to all Christians."

      Since I'm not a Christian, that has nothing to do with my comment. Unless you're trying to say that you should wait until the second coming to brush up on your Jesus quotes, and that sounds like some pretty extreme procrastination.

      "And since you said Easter has more to do with Jesus than any other day, you can't be talking about non-Christians. Non-Christians wouldn't even consider Easter an important day."

      You said "important", not me. I actually questioned the word, if you'll notice. Factually, the phrase was "It's supposed to have something to do with Jesus". Obviously, it has more to do with Jesus than other days (not "any" other day, which you added), since it's a recognized holiday. Even non-Christians have heard of it. And, since you do claim to be a Christian, I said that it was a good day for you to refresh your understanding of Jesus. I was talking specifically to you, and not making a general comment about the importance of Easter, or whatever false impression you were intending to convey.

      "Do you see the day when a thief in the night enters your house on the calender [sic] either?"

      No, demonstrating even further that I can't take it into account when making a comment about the days of the year. As always, the only arguments you make are my own.

      "I thought I'd get a good laugh out of your attempted explanation."

      I'm not sure how you thought that was part of the explanation you asked for. But, since any mention of laughing proves that you know that my point blew your argument out of the water. I suppose it doesn't really matter.

      Delete
    124. Obviously, it has more to do with Jesus than other days (not "any" other day, which you added), since it's a recognized holiday.

      You didn't say anything about "recognized holiday". And, no day is more important than the "glorious day". So, I am correct.


      I was talking specifically to you, and not making a general comment about the importance of Easter, or whatever false impression you were intending to convey.

      Yes, I know that. That's why you got the answer you got.
      First: I am alive today. THAT is the most important to me now and I thank God for that each day it happens. When I die, then I will no longer be waiting for the "glorious day" because I will already be in the presence of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
      Secondly (and I mentioned this trumps all): the "glorious day" is most important to all Christians ... me included (I have already added that and explained why).


      Unless you're trying to say that you should wait until the second coming to brush up on your Jesus quotes, and that sounds like some pretty extreme procrastination.

      Jesus has already returned for His second coming. That was Easter. The "glorious day" is not the second coming. If you believe that it is, then you are not a Christian and the "glorious day" won't be so glorious to you.


      But, since any mention of laughing proves that you know that my point blew your argument out of the water.

      Perhaps you could explain how the "glorious day" would even remotely be less important (or less about Jesus) than an other days. You didn't say what day on the calender. You didn't say what holiday and you didn't say "day of the year". You asked about what day is more about Jesus than other days.
      So, I'm not sure how you can claim I am wrong in any way. Especially considering you were talking to me (or Christianity in general). Perhaps if you want to change the parameters to fit your real concern, then I will re-answer that question for you. Until you do that, I am right.
      Again, you're welcome in advance.

      Delete
    125. "You didn't say anything about "recognized holiday".

      I didn't say anything about any "glorious day", either. Your assumptions are not my responsibility. Besides that, I specified the "recognized holiday" before you shifted gears and brought up the "glorious day".

      "And, no day is more important than the "glorious day". So, I am correct."

      I didn't say "important", and I was referring to actual days. If you have something to indicate that I was commenting on the importance of days that I don't believe will ever happen, then you can show how you could possibly be "correct".

      "Yes, I know that. That's why you got the answer you got."

      Obviously, you don't know that, because I'm not commenting from your perspective. When I say that Easter has something to do with Jesus, that's true on a completely objective level. It doesn't carry over to any specific tenets of your faith that you feel like spouting off about.

      "Jesus has already returned for His second coming. That was Easter. The "glorious day" is not the second coming."

      That would be the resurrection. If your specific faith says that the second coming was Easter, it's at odds with the bulk of Christianity.

      "Perhaps you could explain how the "glorious day" would even remotely be less important (or less about Jesus) than an other days."

      I'm sure it's more "important" to you, but then I'm not the one who introduced that term. Since I don't believe in the "glorious day" at all, I have no possible way of comparing it to anything else.

      "You didn't say what day on the calender [sic]."

      Let's see what you said: "Why would today be any different than any other day?" Obviously, if you're including the "glorious day" in your argument, then I have to wonder why you think that every day is equivalent. Further, your follow-up: "Every day has something to do with Jesus." So, you were downplaying the significance of Easter then, but now you want to talk about the "glorious day" as if you had it in mind at the time. That's pretty strange.

      "You asked about what day is more about Jesus than other days."

      I didn't ask any such thing. Perhaps that's where your confusion stems from.

      "So, I'm not sure how you can claim I am wrong in any way."

      I'm not sure how you can claim you're right in any way. I didn't say anything about what you think is more "important", I was talking about the days of the year, as you were. You're insisting that I made some claim that really exists only in your own muddled mind.

      "Especially considering you were talking to me (or Christianity in general)."

      Nobody can talk to "Christianity in general".

      "Perhaps if you want to change the parameters to fit your real concern, then I will re-answer that question for you."

      What question are you referring to?

      Delete
    126. What question are you referring to?

      Alright, let's clarify your confusion. What are you asking me about? Since you said to me that today would be a good day to touch up on my Jesus quotes. And I replied: "Why would today be any different than any other day?".

      Delete
    127. "Alright, let's clarify your confusion. What are you asking me about?"

      I'm not confused about anything. You mentioned a question that you would "re-answer", but didn't specify or even suggest what that question was. Obviously, that's what I'm asking you about.

      "Since you said to me that today would be a good day to touch up on my Jesus quotes. And I replied: "Why would today be any different than any other day?"."

      I know, I quoted you. That doesn't show what question you were referring to, though.

      Delete
    128. Oh, so you're admitting that there is no difference of days where I should touch up on my Jesus quotes. As I said.

      Delete
    129. "Oh, so you're admitting that there is no difference of days where I should touch up on my Jesus quotes."

      No, Easter would still be an especially good day. There's nothing in my post that suggests otherwise.

      Again, what question were you referring to? You even mentioned the "parameters" of it, so you had to have something in mind.

      Delete
  5. No, Easter would still be an especially good day.

    And, today is no more or less of an "especially good day" than Easter. But, I'm very glad you think Easter is an especially good day. It shows you do believe in Christianity to some extent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And, today is no more or less of an "especially good day" than Easter."

      Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that it's an especially good day for you to brush up on Jesus quotes. Since there's no facts for you to dispute, and no question that you supposedly had to answer, it would seem that you can end this tangent of yours.

      "But, I'm very glad you think Easter is an especially good day. It shows you do believe in Christianity to some extent."

      It's just another day to me. I was referring to you, which is obvious from the context. Would you like to draw out your misrepresentation into another conversation, or are you done now?

      Delete
    2. No tangent of mine. I simply said "Why would today be any different than any other day?" and kept whining about it being more so.

      Delete
    3. That should read "and you kept whining about it being more so.".

      Delete
    4. "I simply said "Why would today be any different than any other day?" and kept whining about it being more so."

      I think I can safely call that a "lie", since all I did was point out that it was Easter, which was clearly relevant to Jesus. If merely answering your question is "whining", then it's your fault for asking the question.

      On the other hand, let's look at you: "Why would today be any different than any other day? Do you not understand the concept of Christianity? Do you even know what today is? Or (ah ha ha) the significance of it? This should be funny to see you flounder around with answering any of those questions."

      And:"Really? Considering you are NOT a Christian, how are you qualified to say that? What does the Bible say that makes Easter more important than any other day? Why is it more important than today? Why more than last Friday? Why more than next Tuesday?"

      Your frenzied reactions go beyond "simply" asking that question. Even more obviously, you published a new post in order to introduce your "glorious day" argument. I merely corrected your misinterpretations and misrepresentations, which is indisputably my right. You went off on a tangent, and you can't show any "whining" on my part.

      Would you like to continue?

      Delete
    5. since all I did was point out that it was Easter, which was clearly relevant to Jesus

      Truthfully, you said: "Easter more so than other days.". And I pointed out how that isn't true.

      Delete
    6. "Truthfully, you said: "Easter more so than other days."."

      That's less than truthful. It doesn't even match up with your claim.
      You: "Why would today be any different than any other day?"
      Me (according to you): "Easter more so than other days."
      That would be "more so" what?

      Let's fill in the blanks, there:
      Me: "Because it's Easter. It's supposed to have something to do with Jesus, the last I heard."
      You: "Every day has something to do with Jesus."
      That's where the "more so" quote came from. I didn't say that until you furthered your tangent.

      "And I pointed out how that isn't true."

      No, you expressed an opinion. You didn't present anything that had any impact on the legitimacy of my comment.

      Delete
    7. That's less than truthful.

      No, that's NOT less than truthful. Go back and read what was said and bring your hypothesis about "less than truthful".


      That would be "more so" what?

      That's what I'm asking, but you keep skirting the issue.


      That's where the "more so" quote came from.

      That's what YOU said in reply to the comment I made (that you just quoted). Try to follow along. I don't have a tangent going, just replying to what you say you believe. And, it's good to see you think Easter is an important day. Considering you're an atheist.
      You started the tangent, I just followed along for the fun of it. And, I'm getting plenty of good laughs watching you try to worm your way out of it (by blaming others for what you did, in true liberal fashion).


      You didn't present anything that had any impact on the legitimacy of my comment.

      Only the "glorious day" which is completely related to what your tangent is about. Which, BTW, you haven't been able to dispute, yet. I'm stil waiting for your grammar correction that will be the icing on the cake.


      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html?showComment=1398058136961#c7923613741257622890

      So, obviously, this is YOUR tangent, not mine. Maybe you shouldn't have said anything about Jesus quotes. Did you think of that before you started your tangent?

      Delete
    8. "Go back and read what was said and bring your hypothesis about "less than truthful"."

      What part did you miss? You skipped over two posts in order to pretend that I responded directly with the "more so" comment.

      "That's what I'm asking, but you keep skirting the issue."

      Where have you asked that?

      "That's what YOU said in reply to the comment I made (that you just quoted)."

      That I quoted while showing what you left out of your claim, yes. You almost had that one right.

      "I don't have a tangent going, just replying to what you say you believe."

      Saying that Easter is a good day for you to read quotes from Jesus hardly bears further explanation.

      "And, it's good to see you think Easter is an important day."

      I never said that, as I suspect you already know.

      "You started the tangent, I just followed along for the fun of it."

      No, a straightforward comment that you turn into a tangent isn't my responsibility. There was nothing in my comment that required any response from you.

      "Only the "glorious day" which is completely related to what your tangent is about."

      Since I don't believe in your "glorious day", it has no bearing on what I said.

      "Which, BTW, you haven't been able to dispute, yet."

      You're expecting evidence that an event won't happen at some undetermined point in time? I'm curious how you think that could possibly exist.

      "Maybe you shouldn't have said anything about Jesus quotes."

      Maybe you shouldn't have started a conversation about it, where you asked questions and made comments which warranted further explanation for your understanding. Feel free to post the original statement and point out exactly how you were forced to respond. Until then, it's your responsibility.

      Delete
    9. You skipped over two posts in order to pretend that I responded directly with the "more so" comment.

      Ok, here are the other posts:
      You: If you are so consumed with pride that you would even dare to risk a single person going hungry and/or homeless so you don't feel that the Church is being slighted, you really need to brush up on your Jesus quotes. Today might be a good day for that.
      Me: Why would today be any different than any other day? Do you not understand the concept of Christianity? Do you even know what today is? Or (ah ha ha) the significance of it?
      You: Because it's Easter. It's supposed to have something to do with Jesus, the last I heard.
      You: Yes, which is why the phrase "Jesus quotes" seemed especially appropriate study material for you. I hope you've pieced all this together by this point.
      Me: Every day has something to do with Jesus. I didn't think you could answer that one. But, your answer wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. Close though.
      You: Easter more so than other days. You seem to be having trouble grasping the element of understatement.

      Ok, are you caught up, now? Your tangent, not mine. Because I just don't see anything about "Jesus quotes" before that. Do you?
      BTW, I don't see holidays or days on the calender being mentioned. Do you?


      Saying that Easter is a good day for you to read quotes from Jesus hardly bears further explanation.

      When you add in "more so", it does. You didn't just say a good day to read quotes from Jesus, did you? No, you said "Easter more so than others."


      There was nothing in my comment that required any response from you.

      Yes, there was. You said "Easter more so than others.". That was a misconception that I felt I needed to correct you on. Considering you're an atheist, your understanding of Christianity may be lacking, so I felt you needed some help. I corrected you on it and told you why and you continue on with your tangent.


      Since I don't believe in your "glorious day", it has no bearing on what I said.

      It does since you were telling me what day is more deserving to study quotes of Jesus. And, the "glorious day" would definitely be more so. Which I explained why the "glorious day" is more so.


      Maybe you shouldn't have started a conversation about it, where you asked questions and made comments which warranted further explanation for your understanding.

      I didn't start that aspect of the conversation. You did, and I've now shown it. If you have a quote of mine that brought "Jesus quotes" in before you did, be very helpful and bring that quote.

      Delete
    10. "Ok, are you caught up, now? Your tangent, not mine."

      Just the opposite, since you're the one who asked questions and made the asinine "Every day has something to do with Jesus" comment. As if the mere idea of someone recognizing a connection between Jesus and Easter really strikes you as being unacceptable or something.

      "Because I just don't see anything about "Jesus quotes" before that. Do you?"

      So, you started a tangent by mentioning "Michigan". Because I don't see any mention of "Michigan" before yours. Do you?

      "BTW, I don't see holidays or days on the calender [sic] being mentioned."

      Christians shouldn't need the connection between Jesus and Easter explained to them. I humbly apologize for underestimating the amount of things that you could possibly be confused about.

      "When you add in "more so", it does."

      You're not grasping the concept of linear time. "More so" wasn't in my original comment, as your own quotes prove. The only way you got to "more so" was to start the conversation. So, the original comment still didn't bear further explanation.

      "You didn't just say a good day to read quotes from Jesus, did you?"

      Factually, I did. Check the quotes as you posted them. You still felt a need to ask questions about it.

      "You said "Easter more so than others."."

      Not in my original comment, sorry. Again, check the history of quotes that you provided. I'm seeing a pattern where you keep talking about laterposts which never would have existed if you hadn't started the tangent.

      "That was a misconception that I felt I needed to correct you on."

      So, when you read my original comment, you felt the need to "correct" something that I said in a later post? This must be connected to your amazing ability to divine my views on a topic that I've said nothing about.

      "Considering you're an atheist, your understanding of Christianity may be lacking, so I felt you needed some help."

      Considering that you didn't explain how Jesus isn't relevant to Easter, you didn't demonstrate how my comment could have been perceived as erroneous. And if you can't do that, then your assumption that I needed your "help" would be evidence of your prejudice against atheists. You're not helping your case, just so you know.

      "It does since you were telling me what day is more deserving to study quotes of Jesus."

      No, because I don't believe in the "glorious day". That means that it's not part of my comment about Easter being a good day for you to read Jesus quotes. If you're deeply offended by the fact that other people don't speak through your perspective, find a therapist instead of engaging in your current unhealthy behavior.

      "And, the "glorious day" would definitely be more so."

      Your opinion is, again, noted. It still has nothing to do with what I said.

      "I didn't start that aspect of the conversation."

      You didn't show how my original quote forced you to say anything at all. Until you can do that, it was a perfectly straightforward comment that didn't require any response from you. That makes a conversation that you start about it your responsibility.

      Otherwise, by your argument, any random word or phrase that you introduce could be taken and turned into a conversation by me, and then I could blame you for it. Since I feel confident in saying that would be entirely unfair to you, I feel just as confident in saying that you shouldn't be trying to apply that absurd standard to me.

      By all means, explain how you could have a rational disagreement with the principle that I just expressed. To clue you in, you can't.

      Delete
    11. There should be a space between "later" and "posts".

      Delete
    12. Just the opposite, since you're the one who asked questions and made the asinine "Every day has something to do with Jesus" comment.

      You mean after you said your asinine "you really need to brush up on your Jesus quotes." comment and I simply asked why? Typical troll logic at work there.


      So, you started a tangent by mentioning "Michigan".

      Thank you for admitting YOU started this tangent. Making it YOUR tangent.


      Christians shouldn't need the connection between Jesus and Easter explained to them.

      They don't. But atheists do when they start asinine tangents on subjects they are completely ignorant about.


      Factually, I did.

      Factually, no you did not. You said "Jesus quotes", not "read quotes from Jesus".


      So, when you read my original comment, you felt the need to "correct" something that I said in a later post?

      If you want to be honest, I needed to get a clarification on what you meant by your first comment that's why I asked a question.


      Considering that you didn't explain how Jesus isn't relevant to Easter, you didn't demonstrate how my comment could have been perceived as erroneous.

      Jesus IS relevant to Easter, just not "more so" as you claimed. You lack of knowledge was duly noted and I tried to give you a friendly lesson. Now, you're all bent out of shape because you were shown to be a dunce concerning Jesus and Easter. Perhaps it is better you stay an atheist. Although, catholics are looking for a few good preists, you seem to have the talent for a job there.


      No, because I don't believe in the "glorious day". That means that it's not part of my comment about Easter being a good day for you to read Jesus quotes.

      You don't believe in Easter either, what's your point now?


      Your opinion is, again, noted. It still has nothing to do with what I said.

      It has everything to do with what you said. You were telling me what day I should read Jesus quotes more so than others. I asked why? Then you took it off into some weird tangent that you are in complete denial about, now.


      You didn't show how my original quote forced you to say anything at all.

      It didn't force me. I felt, being a Christian, on a major Christian holiday, that I'd give you some help ... out of the kindness of my heart. Are you saying I'm not allowed to post, here? That's quite arrogant, isn't it?


      Until you can do that, it was a perfectly straightforward comment that didn't require any response from you.

      If you hadn't made that comment in the first place, then there would have been no response. Are you saying I'm not allowed to comment, but you are? You didn't have to reply to my question. You ignore most of my other questions. Besides, as I explained, I did it voluntarily, no requirements were needed.


      To clue you in, you can't.

      I'm not going to try, because there is no need for me to explain that. If, by your standards, you are allowed to criticize randomly, but I MUST wait until something is strictly on-topic, then you are being a hypocrite.
      BTW, "Jesus quotes" invokes religion. Religion is what this article is about (Church taxation). So, there is nothing "random" about my response to your comment about religion during a discussion on religion. But, it's good to see you don't have the intellect to discuss honestly when questions arise about tangents that you start concerning subjects you have no knowledge about.

      I gather you'll be running away now that I've shot down every argument you've made concerning Jesus quotes. Funny... an atheist telling someone (anyone) to brush up on Jesus, then claiming that no one has the right to respond unless specifically required.

      BTW, still waiting for the grammar corrections that indicate you have entered 'I give up' mode.

      Delete
    13. "You mean after you said your asinine "you really need to brush up on your Jesus quotes." comment and I simply asked why?"

      You didn't dispute the rest of the quote, so your criticism is a mystery. And it's been pointed out that you didn't "simply" ask why. You're not a victim.

      "Thank you for admitting YOU started this tangent. Making it YOUR tangent."

      I'm not admitting any such thing. I'm mocking you, obviously. But if any introduction of a new word or phrase is a "tangent", then you wouldn't have any room to complain. If anything, my decision not to "follow along" would make me the more responsible person.

      "But atheists do when they start asinine tangents on subjects they are completely ignorant about."

      So, Easter doesn't have anything to do with Jesus, then? Is that your claim?

      "You said "Jesus quotes", not "read quotes from Jesus"."

      You didn't put quotation marks around that phrase, so you didn't care about the specific wording. That's evidenced by the fact that you put two other actual quotes within quotation marks.

      "If you want to be honest, I needed to get a clarification on what you meant by your first comment that's why I asked a question."

      Because you didn't see any connection between Jesus and Easter?

      "Jesus IS relevant to Easter, just not "more so" as you claimed."

      Like hell. Jesus isn't more relevant to Easter than he is to, say, Halloween? April Fool's Day? Thanksgiving? You think that people associate Jesus with those days, or any average day of the year as much as they associate him with Easter? Do explain your theory on that one.

      "You [sic] lack of knowledge was duly noted and I tried to give you a friendly lesson."

      Your opinion that every day has something to do with Jesus isn't a "lesson". That opinion is also at odds with the idea that you were thinking about some "glorious day" at the time, as opposed to coming up with that absurd argument later on. Even if you had, though, your religious views have no relevance to my comment. There are no facts involved in your dogma, and my opinion that Easter has more of a connection to Jesus than other days is not only completely justifiable, but beyond your control. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

      "Now, you're all bent out of shape because you were shown to be a dunce concerning Jesus and Easter."

      You didn't state any supposed facts about Easter itself, except that it was the second coming instead of the resurrection as major Christian religions happen to believe.

      "You don't believe in Easter either, what's your point now?"

      I don't celebrate Easter, but I can see it on a calendar and I'm well aware of the meaning behind it.

      "You were telling me what day I should read Jesus quotes more so than others."

      Then I couldn't have possibly factored some "glorious day" into that, because I don't believe in it. It's not even clear why you would wait until that day.

      "It didn't force me."

      Then there's no action that I took that in any way prompted your response.

      "I felt, being a Christian, on a major Christian holiday, that I'd give you some help ... out of the kindness of my heart."

      Did you show how Easter didn't have anything to do with Jesus? Were you trying to convince an atheist that there is a "glorious day" to come? Or was your point that it would be better for you to wait until that day for you to re-read the words of your Lord and Savior? None of those are good options.

      Delete
    14. "Are you saying I'm not allowed to post, here?"

      No, I'm pointing out that you started a tangent. I certainly didn't say anything along the lines of "When you can back up any of the shit you say, I'll let you post here again. Until then you are banned from posting here."

      "That's quite arrogant, isn't it?"

      When I stop laughing at your hypocrisy, I'll answer that.

      "If you hadn't made that comment in the first place, then there would have been no response."

      I'm trying to figure out what sort of behavior you could not justify with that hilariously lame excuse. I think I could even apply it to your first post on any article.

      "You didn't have to reply to my question."

      Why wouldn't I? And you wouldn't want me to disprove your "intimidated" claim anyway, so you can hardly say that you didn't expect me to reply to any question you asked.

      "You ignore most of my other questions."

      I'd love to see you try to back that up.

      "Besides, as I explained, I did it voluntarily, no requirements were needed."

      I know. That's why it's your responsibility, not mine.

      "If, by your standards, you are allowed to criticize randomly, but I MUST wait until something is strictly on-topic, then you are being a hypocrite."

      The comment is about your standard. I have zero interest in starting a conversation about "Michigan", the point would obviously be that your standard would allow me to do that, while preventing you from claiming hypocrisy.

      Also, the issue here is that you don't have a legitimate argument to make. People know that Easter is related to Jesus. Hence the comment. There's no "lesson" needed, and there's no perspective that's going to invalidate what I said. It doesn't even matter "why" it would be a good day for you to brush up on Jesus quotes. Any Sunday would be a good day. Any day off of work would be a good day. The soonest day possible for you to figure out the religion that you claim to embrace would be a good day. The fact that it was Easter just made the concept even more applicable, and whatever possibility you were imagining didn't affect the point I was making in the slightest. Do you have any questions on that?

      "BTW, "Jesus quotes" invokes religion. Religion is what this article is about (Church taxation)."

      That doesn't add up to your questions being sensible, relevant, or necessary.

      "But, it's good to see you don't have the intellect to discuss honestly when questions arise about tangents that you start concerning subjects you have no knowledge about."

      You:"And, it's good to see you think Easter is an important day."
      You don't get to talk about honesty.

      "Funny... an atheist telling someone (anyone) to brush up on Jesus, then claiming that no one has the right to respond unless specifically required."

      I didn't claim that, either, but thanks for the reconfirmation of your hypocrisy. If you have a valid point to make, I always invite that. You pushing your beliefs on me as if I'm in any way obligated to take them into account for the comment in question does not qualify.

      Also, since I behave like more of a Christian than you do, I will tell you to brush up on your Jesus quotes as often as I feel the need. If you're going to act as if your faith makes you better than others, then you're going to be held to a higher standard of behavior. And there's nothing you can say that's going to change that fact.

      Delete