fate

Q: So you think it is ok to condemn an entire race as stupid

?

Your the guy who interprets "think differently" as stupid.

Sassenach wrote:Do you think maybe calling each other bigots has run it's course and proven to be a really bad idea ? Just sayin...

Yeah, and I have run out of popcorn.

But if you say the Bible is infallible... the question is why?

fate

Because it says so.

In other words you have faith that what it says is literally true.
Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof

I think you help illustrate how a religious mind works.

rickyp wrote:fate

Q: So you think it is ok to condemn an entire race as stupid

?

Your the guy who interprets "think differently" as stupid.

No, RJ said that and I cited it based on the charges of irrationality, lack of capacity for rational thinking, and other charges you've made.

You've still not answered my question about Romney. I suspect it's because you know you're wrong and that is one thing you simply can't admit.

rickyp wrote:In other words you have faith that what it says is literally true.
Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof

Ricky, no good can come of this line of argument. It always takes the discussion down the worst path. You have irreconcilable differences, leave them un-reconciled, or take it to the religion forum and see if you can get people to follow you there.

rickyp wrote:

But if you say the Bible is infallible... the question is why?

fate

Because it says so.

In other words you have faith that what it says is literally true.
Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof

I think you help illustrate how a religious mind works.

No, I think you illustrate that you know precious little about Christianity. You presume it bypasses the mind or that it controls the mind. Neither one is true.

Again, I can give you a list of brilliant Christians--men and wome whose intellect would tower over yours. But, to what end? What would it take to convince you that people don't have to agree with you in order to be intelligent?

That's the funny thing. I find you irrational and it has nothing to do with your lack of faith. It has everything to do with you refusing to adhere to any system of reason or logic.

I don't describe atheists as "thinking differently." I don't describe them as rubes, idiots, or anything of the like. I understand why they are where they are. I respect them--even though I believe they are wrong.

You consistently demonstrate a lack of respect for anyone who does not agree with you.

I'll admit: I frequently lack respect for you, but that is because of your frequent incoherence--and dishonesty. When the questions get rough or the facts are contra your thoughts, you simply move on--it's happened several times in this thread alone.

bbauska

Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, what? I am trying to learn about you. Help me understand you more

Not affiliated means not affiliated..

According to "Religious Tolerance" It can mean; Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Deists, freethinkers, secularists, etc. .
I'd say free thinker if really pressed to label... but I don't much like that label either.
There are a lot of fundamental similarities between every religion. Including the ethic of reciprocity which appears in everyone and all humanist philosophies as well.
I prefer to focus on the positive similarities at the heart of religions rather than the contrivance that men have used when forming religions to create differences.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, what? I am trying to learn about you. Help me understand you more

Not affiliated means not affiliated..

How intentionally cryptic. Thank you for showing what you believe/not believe in.

freeman3 wrote:I don't need to be called hate-filled and a bigot. I was thinking of responding in kind but what good would that do ? Good luck with the site, Brad.

Sorry I haven't responded to this sooner. Life limited when I could get to the board. The delay was probably good for the perspective it gave me.

Perhaps I did go overboard calling Freeman a hate-filled bigot. Perhaps I should have just called his comments insulting and ignorant. I do believe his comments are the dog whistles that I referred to in a previous post. And I agree with the way Dr Fate has referenced Freeman's opinions about Republicans.

The test everybody should use in referencing members of the opposition is to place their own party name in the comments and see how they would react. For examples, Obama is an inexperienced noob and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. white liberal elites support Obama only because it assuages their guilt an their white privileges. If Freeman would have called a Republican who said this a racist, which I believe he would, than isn't he being more than a little hypocritical.

See there, I probably just pulled my own version of what I accuse Freeman of doing so I will end it with, I apologize for calling you a hate filled bigot.

Ray Jay wrote:So, based on that disturbing fact about 43% of Republicans (and I agree it is disturbing), you are going to condemn the other 57% by saying that the

You know what I always love about this statistic? The response is that yes 43% of Republicans may be birthers/thinks he's a Muslim, but over 50% of Democrats identify as Truthers,

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith ... new-035224

How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

There is no lack of lunatic conspiracy theorist on either side of the isle.

That's an apology? What an idiot to even try. Some things you don't get to walk back. You 're just an angry dude. I remember your getting angry at someone who teased you for not paying on a small bet saying that you had been unemployed and couldn't pay him for like a couple of years because you had to feed your family. That's the kind of guy you are, Archduke.

And Brad no worries about your recent comment and no need to apologize. Thanks for keeping Redscape going. And sorry about the above but at some point you can't let people insult you without responding in kind.

freeman3 wrote:That's an apology? What an idiot to even try. Some things you don't get to walk back. You 're just an angry dude. I remember your getting angry at someone who teased you for not paying on a small bet saying that you had been unemployed and couldn't pay him for like a couple of years because you had to feed your family. That's the kind of guy you are, Archduke.

No worries Freeman. You don't have to accept my apologies. Just know that it was heartfelt. But thank you and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend.

freeman3 wrote: Thanks for keeping Redscape going. And sorry about the above but at some point you can't let people insult you without responding in kind.

I agree with this sentiment in its entirety hence my original post that started the whole mess.

Well, that's more conciliatory so let's end this exchange on a civil note. What's done is done, I am moving on from contributing here, but no more negativity from me regarding this. I just want to forget this ever happened.