Yea I agree, here in this context interpret really means ignore. Cherry pickers vs literalists.

Peter again, there is no such thing as blind tolerance in relation to the subject of fatih; all faiths are to be tolerated - no exclusions even if there is a "this of that" kind of thing within a religion.

Even so with Andy pointing out as you say, he has a target but first asks first for others' views before he anything further, would you not think a topic master would read the responses before continuing to see an error and not continue. Why would he ask in the first place before he says he would continue without reading what others wrote.

So are you saying by him having a target he then is like a raging bull regardless in what will be said? I would think a person after having read what others wrote would not continue on.

Peter Pan I ask for you not to bring me back into this thread. I contributed in the first set and see there is nothing more I want to add, for where the topic has been lead into and went off I do not want to participate in his seocnd round of questioning for it has taken a turn into another topic. Thank you.

Peter Pan, again, tolerance does not encompass exclusion, period.

Andy perhaps worded his question poorly for his use of the word tolerance does not permit posing the next question he poses. I believe even though he asked others he most likely did not read all people's responses otherwise he would of seen his error for clearly it was pointed out by more than one person in the first round of questioning of what is tolerance.

As well for Riskit to drag me into the second of questioning by quoteing something I said which does not theoretically fit, neither did he understood by what was meant.

It has turned into an unending debate by bringing in other religions making and changing the topic completely from what was initially started.

Now there are two halves of this question/ issue. One is tolerance for a religion one knows nothing about. Second is tolerance for a faith you read their "Bible" "Manifest" "Mantra" (whatever) and what you read is, to say the least, appalling to a person of education.

I am coming from a place of knowing about the faith from reading its bible but frankly I also am interested in the concepts of blind tolerance. Is blind tolerance really justifiable?

and that specific faith group is part of the abrahamic cult and what you view as going off topic Andy should be giving his opinion not you cause basically this isn't your thread.I never went off topic i posted many of times in a thread about tolerance and was explaining how tolerance is viewed through the eyes of an atheist if you can't accept that then go pray to your myth you have faith in.

But again what if the core tenants of a faith are to lie, kill, harm, and do mean things to those NOT of your faith? Christians are annoying but they don't have a holy war on everyone else. Can you tolerate a faith out to either force you to their way or kill you?

Same goes for christianity if you don't accept Jesus you will be punished.

The Judaic God will punish you if you don't believe in him.

Thing with christianity you have to accept God and Jesus or you're chit out of luck.

I don't believe in any of it so which hell am i going to?the Islamic hell or the Judaic christian hell?

This is a game, for funsies only. Each poster creates and numbers a rule following current numerical order, or adds to an existing one. There is only one condition. The new rule and/or addition must not violate the ones being used at the time. I say "at the time" because as we will soon see, the rules are subject to change...



I'll start it off.

1.) All posters must begin each post with a courteous greeting to each and every participant, prior to adding a rule.

Say something philosophically interesting or stay on the porch. Are you ready, willing, and/or able to do that?

There is a difference between my pointing that out, which is what I have done numerous times, and my insisting that that is a literal interpretation. Nowhere in this thread have I insisted upon such a thing. You - evidently - cannot see where you've went wrong. I cannot explain it any clearer. That is the interpretation required for your claims to be true. Your claims logically imply that interpretation.

If you wish to argue otherwise you must offer something more than "Are you alone?" as an interpretation of "Are you alone?" because THAT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION.

An interpretation attributes meaning to the expression. An intepretation of a question necessarily assumes what information is being asked for, and an answer follows. If you cannot grasp that, there is no point in continuing here.

Ah, nevermind...

You can't show such a thing because I haven't insisted such a thing. Rather, that nonsensical interpretation came about because I was pointing out that that would be required from Joe in order for your initial claims about Joe's honesty to be true.

Ya just ain't figured it out yet, dude.

How far into absurdity are you willing to go in order to prove that you're giving an absurd argument? I've already shown how it takes an utterly pointless interpretation of the question in order to support your argument. The interesting thing is that you know, and have concurred, that such an interpretation is nonsensical.





Not at all. I'm assuming that Joe understands the meaning of an uncontentious question just like you and I do. I've also argued about the nonsense of the alternative, and you agreed. You have not reconciled that self-contradiction yet. An honest answer of "No." would depend upon the listener knowing that the speaker meant "Are you alone, or am I here too?"

So, for "No." to be an honest answer, Joe must first know that Jill is changing the well known meaning of an uncontentious question and asking a rather stupid and pointless one that isn't worth answering to begin with.





What other meaning makes sense Pan? What else could the question possibly mean?

Creative, you should start another interesting thread. This is getting ridiculous.

How droll. Sad really.

If, and only if, you stated what you believed to be the case; you told 'the truth'.



I've learned a few things of value, I believe. I've also clearly demonstrated that I'll waste a lot of time talking to utterly irrational folk.



That's nothing new though.

I can tell a lie and I know when I do so. I responded to a question recently (see below) – do you think I lied or told the truth?

Q – Do you really believe all the end-of –world hype about Fukushima ?

My response: We need some very brave heroes, some with intellect about the situation, some with creative genius for an innovative course of action, and some with altruistic heart to carry out the experiment and if it fails, yes I believe the hype.

Now let me ask you fellows a question in the hopes I get the ‘truth’.

Q – Are either of you learning anything of value in this thread or are you just playing a "game of cards for penny a point and no one's keepin score"

C'mon Pan... I mean, really?

Your argument has been effectively reduced to nonsensical impossibility, ad hom, and emoticon, and yet you stand gloating and proud because you think that you've 'predicted' that I would ignore an irrelevant question? Do you think that that matters?

What a hollow victory. One must take what one can get, I suppose.

Do you not recognize what's been done to your argument? Do you not have the mental integrity to posit a rebuttal or counterargument? Do you not see that if an argument is contingent upon one definition of one word, that it is not even worth it's weight in salt?