Replies

You won't answer my questions because you're trying to portray yourself as not saying that Christians are mystics.

I have told you numerous times why I don't answer your questions. You proclaim to know better than I why I don't answer your questions. You're a hoot!

Zon: I don't lie, not even to a person like you that is deserving of nothing but scorn. Which is nothing compared to many people (identified in post 251) who in the name of fun and love routinely lie to their own children -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause being the most repeated lie, followed by Easter bunny and tooth fairy. 335

You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God. You're getting careless again.

A person would only be telling a lie only when they know what they are saying isn't true. Since I explained in that same post (335) the difference between a lie and an error either it is you once again being careless, probably due to your mysticism-polluted mind which has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand. If not that, it appears that you're saying that you know a supernatural God doesn't exists but "teach" it regardless of knowing the truth. I mean, how else do you explain you saying "You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God." because for the vast majority of people (99.9%) when they "teach" the supernatural God concept they don't know that a supernatural God doesn't exist -- thus they're not lying. To lie is to say something that the speaker knows to be false.

You're burning yourself at the stake by not standing by your atheist philosophy. I've caught you in an inconsistency. You atheists are always accusing Christians of inconsistancies, but now you can't back up your words in post #251 by answering my questions.

I'm burning up with laughter. And you know what, it feels damn good. You've caught your own Jupiter-sized ego. I've been consistent and have stood by post 251, never wavering, never retracting anything and never editing it as can be seen by my repeated reposting of post 251. Also, I backed up post 251 in post 327. I told you why I don't answer your questions. Your demand for answers is your questions is you playing judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition".

Zon: Quick lesson on what is and what isn't a lie. Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. 335
So are you saying that you made an error when you said that those that teach of a supernatural God practice mysticism?

Isn't that convenient of you to omit a portion of the lesson to suit your agenda. Here's the complete lesson as it was posted in post 335: The part you omitted to suit your dishonest agenda is highlighted in red

Zon: Quick lesson on what is and what isn't a lie. Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. Example 2: Person C asks person D what day of the week it is. Person D, knowing it's actually Wednesday responds, "it's Tuesday". Person D told a lie. 335

Your dishonesty know no bounds. I suppose you probably think some supernatural God smiles upon that.

Zon: Why the above explanation? To clarify that for the vast majority of parents and people that inject the non-reality/mysticism supernatural God concept into children's minds, they're not telling a lie, For they actually believe the concept to be valid... 335
Error or not, are they committing child abuse? In post #251, you said they were.

I stand behind post 251 and backed it up with post 327, which I stand behind as well.

Here's the middle part of the paragraph from post 335 you omitted and didn't respond to: " they would be Person B in the above example. On the other hand, parents that inject the non-realities/mysticism of the other three -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- are telling a lie." 335

Here you pick up at the end of the paragraph:

Zon: For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.335

You've really lost it. Why? Because first you omit the portion of the lesson that included "Example 2" with Person C and Person D (highlighted in red, eight paragraphs above) to suit your dishonest agenda. Then in my explanation that immediately followed the lesson -- as I said in post 335 "Why the above explanation?" -- you have included the explanation reference to Person D in the lesson I gave. In other words, you omitted a critical part of the lesson (Example2) I gave and then in the explanation I gave for the lesson, you quote a section of my explanation (Person D that refers back to Person D in Example 2 (which you omitted)). You really are a hoot! Tripping all over yourself and all. Do you do birthday parties?

Zon: For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.335

So the only ones that qualifies for your child abuse charge are the God worshippers who also do the other three. Most Christians do the other three along with their teachings of a supernatural God, so are you going to be consistant and say they they are committing child abuse like you said in post #251?
"So the only ones that qualifies for your child abuse charge are the God worshippers who also do the other three."

I already explained in post 333 and reposted it in post 335. You're feigning. I simple can't believe you're that in competent. Here it is again: (Key words highlighted in red identify the people that qualify -- emphasis in bold and extreme emphasis underlined.)

Zon: Clearly the context of post 251 (reposted below) is the group. The group identified is: any person and all persons that partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds; the four non-realities/mysticism are (1) flying reindeer towing a fat man (Santa Clause), (2) Easter bunny, (3) tooth fairy and (4) supernatural God. Common-sense logic is that the group can be categorized into several subgroups, which I never did categorize any subgroups because I chose the context to be the whole group. 333, 335

Zon: I'm not an atheist due to a technical concern. It's way over your head so I won't bother trying to explain. 335

You put all this importance on the teaching of Santa Claus and you want to say something is over my head? LOL

Most of what I've been doing is over your head. Frankly, I'm still somewhat amazed that you haven't caught on yet. Cary on.

Zon: You just can't stand it that I'm not bowing before you: the judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition". 335

Zon: I repeat, I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327. 335

Then answer my questions. Those that don't have faith in their philosophy are afraid of questions.

Your questions don't scare me in the least. It sure is fun watching you perform though.

Zon: In post 326 I particular like the analogy of you and the Washington Post writer. 335

What the Washington post writer said was a lie though, because not all Dems were stalling. All Christians believe in a supernatural God.

Your mischaracterization of the Washington Post Writer analogy to you is duly noted. In fact, I like the analogy so much I'll repost it here: (The reader that wants the context as it was originally presented can read it at post 326)

"I put forth an analogy. Two weeks ago a Washington Post reporter created a mind-spun fabrication. He wrote that in a speech President Bush said that it was Senate Democrats that were stalling Homeland Security. That is, the Washington Post writer claimed that President Bush's comment was meant/directed at the Senate Democrats sub-group. When in fact President Bush said that it was the Senators (the whole group identified) that were stalling Homeland Security.
"Hundreds of Freepers jumped on that mind-spun fabrication that the Washington Post reporter had created. A few other news sources had articles in their printed papers and online articles that claimed the same as the Washington Post article.
"Several articles that weren't liberal-biased were posted on FreeRepublic. In those articles the writers pointed out the mind-spun fabrication in the Washington Post article and other articles that claimed the same.
"It was clear to virtually every Freeper who read one or more of those non-liberal-biased articles that at best it was an error and at worst, intentional deception via mind-spun fabrication. Considering the liberal bias in the news outlets that reported the mind-spun fabrication as truth, the vast majority of Freepers took the position that it was a deliberate deception being foisted on the readers of those news outlets.
"Again, the Washington Post writer's mind-spun fabrication that he created was that President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate Democrat sub-group -- when in fact, President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate which is inclusive of all Senators." 326
Atheist governments committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century

"In one thirty-year period, Christian religious wars wiped out one-third the population of Europe. "275 -- andy_card. There's no valid reason for a person, group of persons or government to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person.

Zon: Your atheist issue is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There's many people that aren't atheists and many that are atheists that inject into the innocent and formative young minds of little children the three non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny and tooth fairy. People that do that are intentionally lying to young children with the intent to deceive the child. As you said, "as if post #251 wasn't clear enough". Many people rationalize that the deception is good because it's done in the name of fun and love. They throw honest principle out the window. For an in-depth treatment see post 327. 335

Are you going to press the government to press charges against Christians for their "hideous child abuse" that you accused them of in post #251?

No.

Finally, after more than a dozen post to you I have my first question for you: Do you think it is wrong for an adult to inject one or more of the three lies/non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- into a young child's mind knowing that the adult's intent is to deceive the child into believing that a specific lie/non-reality/mysticism exists when in fact it doesn't exist?

I have told you numerous times why I don't answer your questions. You proclaim to know better than I why I don't answer your questions. You're a hoot!

Of course I know. You're too afraid to stand by your words.

A person would only be telling a lie only when they know what they are saying isn't true. Since I explained in that same post (335) the difference between a lie and an error either it is you once again being careless, probably due to your mysticism-polluted mind which has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand. If not that, it appears that you're saying that you know a supernatural God doesn't exists but "teach" it regardless of knowing the truth. I mean, how else do you explain you saying "You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God." because for the vast majority of people (99.9%) when they "teach" the supernatural God concept they don't know that a supernatural God doesn't exist -- thus they're not lying. To lie is to say something that the speaker knows to be false.

God is real and Christians believe in him.

Yes or no will do. I don't have the power to throw you in a dungeon, don't worry.

I simply asked you a question.

Your dishonesty know no bounds. I suppose you probably think some supernatural God smiles upon that.

You're the one being dishonest by not repeating that you think God woshippers commit child abuse when they teach their kids about God.

I stand behind post 251 and backed it up with post 327, which I stand behind as well.

I'll take that as a "yes".

Here you pick up at the end of the paragraph:

I'm deleting half your posts because all your doing is cutting and pasting from previous posts. You don't have the intelligence to expand on your thoughts.

You've really lost it. Why? Because first you omit the portion of the lesson that included "Example 2"

I know what a liar is and you are one. No need to for me to repost your thread filler.

You really are a hoot! Tripping all over yourself and all. Do you do birthday parties?

I'm not the one running from my own statements. You are running from yours.

I already explained in post 333 and reposted it in post 335. You're feigning. I simple can't believe you're that in competent.

Incompetent is one word.

Most of what I've been doing is over your head. Frankly, I'm still somewhat amazed that you haven't caught on yet. Cary on.

I'm amazed that you're spending all this energy running away from one post. Anyone who reads this needs to to a poster search. Search my name and search Zon's. You'll see that I have been carrying on discussions on several threads. You'll see that Zon has neen occupied with this thread for the last three days! This is hilarious. I have become the focal point of his life. It takes me 5 minutes to respond on this thread. With all his references and cut and pastes, he's spending hours a day on this. By all means you carry on, Zon. I enjoy keeping atheists tied up in this kind of pettiness. It draws them away from supporting their leaders and that may keep a genocide from happening. LOL

Your questions don't scare me in the least. It sure is fun watching you perform though.

It must be. It's been your only activity on FR for the last few days. LOL

Your mischaracterization of the Washington Post Writer analogy to you is duly noted.

Duly noted? You mean you're putting on my permanent record?! Please no!! /sarcasm LOL

There's no valid reason for a person, group of persons or government to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person.

Atheists have a habit of doing just that though.

No.

I'm amazed that you didn't see what I just did. I repeated that you accused Christians of child abuse and you didn't refute it. Are you getting tired? I thought we was going to get to go through all that stuff we went through earlier. I got to keep you occupied for a few more days. tehehehe

Finally, after more than a dozen post to you I have my first question for you:...

Wow, a real question on topic instead of these idiotic semantical games you've been playing for half this thread.

Do you think it is wrong for an adult to inject one or more of the three lies/non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- into a young child's mind knowing that the adult's intent is to deceive the child into believing that a specific lie/non-reality/mysticism exists when in fact it doesn't exist?

Of course not. Kids find out that those three examples don't exist in due time and it makes a child actually feel more grown up when he/she recognizes that fact. God is more real than rain though so you can't compare those three with Christianity.