No, I haven't. Is it being updated by 14-year-olds now? Pitty. It used to have standards.

There is only one "component" to "an atheist worldview," and that is skepticism toward theological claims.

There are no more to be "added."

It was a question, not a statement.

Why would I want to let your inability to tell the difference between a quote an attribution lie? Why would I want to let your inability to differentiate between "questionability" and "accuracy" lie?

You "gave" me an opportunity to let you slide on your incompetence? Why would I do that?

If you were me. Use the subjunctive mood.

And you seem intent on confusing a quote with an attribution.

You called my quote inaccurate (or, more accurately, passive-aggressively "asked" me if it was accurate). Well the line appeared in the 1574 translation of John Bale's Acta Romanorum Pontificum as: "All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie." So the quote is, in fact, not a quote at all, but a paraphrasing. Fair enough: you got me there.

What you were really pointing out, however, was not the accuracy of the wording of the quote (about which you have strangely failed to criticize me), but Bale's attribution of the quote to Giovanni de' Medici. Bale's attribution is not inaccurate, however; it is only questionable, since there is no evidence that Bale lied when he wrote that the Pope said that. If six other documents detailing the same papal conversation presented accounts that differed from Bale's but agreed with each other, then you might call the attribution inaccurate. But there isn't. There is only Bale's word, which, at worst, is questionable.

For example: Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." So the line:

is an accurate quote, but an inaccurate attribution. If you called the above an "inaccurate quote," you would be wrong. The quote is quite correct. The attribution is inaccurate. If, however, I presented the line:

then I would be presenting an inaccurate quote (with, I suppose, a partially accurate attribution, since Jefferson wrote most, but not all, of those words). If, however, I presented the line:

then the quote is questionable, because there's no evidence that it was said or written, but it's not necessarily inaccurate, because Jefferson might have said it. On the other hand, the line:

is a questionable quote (since Jefferson might have said it rather than Shakespeare) with an inaccurate attribution (since Shakespeare lived two centuries before Hemings' time. Finally, the line:

is both an inaccurate quote, because the word "gristlebracken" has never been used before in human history, and an inaccurate attribution, because Glenn Beck does not have a gristlebracken (and I, having just invented the word this evening, would know).

I hope this clarifies the difference between questionability and accuracy, as well as the difference between a quote and its attribution. If not, you know where to find me.

What's this "us" nonsense? You and...Jesus?

I really don't care what you believe. I merely explained why I used that quote. I don't much care if you think I'm lying about it.

It's not inaccurate. It's a paraphrase rather than a quote, but it's not an inaccurate one. I paraphrased John Bale fairly accurately.

Your issue is with Bale's attribution of the line to de' Medici.

So surely you must have some criticism of my new quote. It is obviously inaccurate, since Cortland Andrus, a fictional character, could not have ever said or written any such thing, being, as he is, nonexistent. You are so obviously concerned with the accuracy of quotations: please, you must weigh in on this matter.

Well, yes.

Ask around. I recall telling someone something to that effect before I made it my signature in the first place.

So it just happened to work out that I used a questionable quote which was written decades after the alleged incident by a man who probably wasn't there to demonstrate the unreliability of gospels which were written decades after the alleged incidents by men who probably weren't there?

What a fantastic coincidence that turns out to be for me.

No need for the even if, son.

I neither lied, nor covered anything up.

If you really think I didn't fully appreciate the questionability of the Bale quote, and that you blew the cover on my ignorance, and that I subsequently concocted some convoluted story to defend quoting Bale's writing, then nothing I say is going to change your mind. You've already decided what you're going to believe, truth be damned.

Frankly, I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.

You're a fool if you think I don't realize that you meant it as an insult.

But what you intend as an insult, I take as a compliment. You think little of Irreligious; I think much of him. If you think as little of me as you think of him, then I am honored by your low opinion, since your judge of character is so clearly askew.

Stuff and nonsense. The quote you gave is of questionable accuracy because it is not at all clear that Pope Leo X ever said it at all. The source you cite is a polemic against the catholic church and can not be called in any sense reliable. Additionally there is no other source that quotes Pope Leo X ever expressing similar sentiments.

So, you go on believing that a quotation that somebody most likely never said, and certainly can't be proven to have said is an accurate quotation of what they said. You're only fooling yourself.

edit: I see you've reverted your signature to the inaccurate quotation of Pope Leo X, presumably in order to fully demonstrate what little regard you have for the truth.

I think fuchs knows you were not doling out compliments to anybody here. I mean, that would be a gross departure from your usual self-appointed duties, wouldn't it?

Regardless of the topic? Really? Can you make baseless claims against pink unicorns? Or about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The words are as accurate as a paraphrase needs to be.

It is the origin, which is to say the attribution, that is questionable. Not the quote.

So your issue is with the questionable attribution of an otherwise accurate paraphrase.

It is also not at all clear that de' Medici never said it. Which is why the attribution is questionable. I never said it wasn't.

Based on what do you say that Bale is not reliable?

Just because he wrote something that cast the Catholic Church is a negative light?

Which is why the quote is questionable, and I never said it wasn't.

You are in no position to determine the likelihood of anyone saying anything.

You really are determined to remain ignorant, aren't you?

The words come from John Bale's writing. It is an accurate quote of John Bale's words. I never said that it was an accurate quote of de' Medici's words. John Bale, presumably, said that it was, but I can't vouch for Bale's accuracy, and I won't. But I will say, and be right in doing so, that I have accurately paraphrased John's Bale's words, which Bale ascribes to de' Medici.

So, just to be clear: I'm making no statement at all about the accurate attribution of the words "it has served us well, this myth of Christ" to de' Medici. He may or may not have said it, and I really don't care which it is. I am merely attempting to accurately quote (or at least paraphrase) the words of John Bale, who wrote that de' Medici said something to the effect that "it has served us well, this myth of Christ."

If it eases your twitchy little conscience, think of Bale as a novelist, and Pope Leo X as a fictional character in a novel that Bale wrote.

Are you sure you're not here to purposely breech the peace because you cannot abide the fact that we don't share your faith and we have the temerity to deride it on this forum?

I haven't seen any evidence of your discussing ideas with anybody here. In fact, you're pretty much bound to take a contrary position with practically everyone you engage here. You concede nothing, nor have you ever compelled anyone to agree with you (the dearly departed Lily excluded). The exchanges you engage in with others here are pretty predictible but, perhaps, you like it that way?

Exactly. You dont get along well with anybody here. You can't abide them and the evidence shows that they cannot abide you, either, if they pay any attention to you at all. Doesn't that tell you something about the quality of the time you are spending here?

What about your style of communication? Perhaps, you are incapable of dealing amicably with the atheists here and that is why your exchanges are so hostile. Can you name one poster here with whom you are capable of getting along?

Perhaps you are in the wrong forum for enaging the kinds of discussions you like to engage. If you want pleasant, non-contentious exchanges, perhaps you should be posting on a Christian forum. Did that ever occur to you?

I can't speak for Irr, but is that some sort of accomplishment? People who reject supernatural explanations without evidence also lack belief in the supernatural, until evidence is provided. I'm underwhelmed.
I don't know if your suspicions can be taken as a rule, and, if anything, it becomes more of a chicken-or-egg issue.

But, based on your statement, you admit that you are post-rationalizing your religious faith?
Like I said, that's not very impressive in my book.

On a side note, I don't see how buddhists could subscribe to MN, considering that they believe in supernatural things. How are they different than theists, when it's only the form of the supernatural (of which neither have evidence) that differs?
But, it's not required, even for western atheists, right?

Thomas obviously isn’t here for civil dialogue. He’s an angry and ignorant monotheist on a jihad for his god of choice - another enemy of reason, but more than just a religious ideologue boldly blustering as a smokescreen to cover his contradiction with fact. I suspect he suffers from a mental disorder much more serious than the simple cognitive dissonance of the typical self-deceiving theist. Beneath his posturing as a man of moderation and propriety lies a vicious prototypical psychopath engaged in the sadistic pleasure of tormenting those he has labeled subhuman. His insistence that he is only here to discuss differing worldviews is merely a masquerade to disguise his predacious intent. :\

It was quite clear to most of us the first time you explained it. For Thomas, the insistence that you are somehow in error has become a point of dogma that he seems determined to defend obstinately. Like so many times before, he was wrong, but lacked the honesty to admit it. His dishonesty is once again demonstrated.

And proudly so! ;)

Not necessarily. And anyway there are even plenty of god-Wallopers who claim The Allsmitey isn't "supernatural" in order to have their cock and eat it too.

Are you trying to tell me that baseless claims are not baseless?

Quite sure.

From my point of view the opposite appears to be true. It appears that throwing up a smokescreen of obfuscation, pedantry and abuse is the common tactic here for avoiding discussion.


I get on well with those who afford me the chance.

No, unlike you I don't see the value in surrounding myself only with those inclined to agree.

I'm just impressed how patient a fisherman Anthony was. That worm must have been a tiny shrivelled lump by the time Thomas ate it. Also kudos everyone else who resisted queering the pitch. :lol:

And, yet, you are not at all compelled to explain how it is that you manage to be continually at odds with nearly every poster you engage here.


Are you accusing others here of throwing up smokescreens to obscure your god?

Have you ever presented one shred of concrete evidence for the existence of your god that we might examine it for ourselves? If you think you have, would you kindly remind us what it was?

And if, on the off-chance, you'd like to concede that you have not, could you please explain why you think you don't have to?

Names, please?


I see. So, what is the value in surrounding yourself only with those who are inclined to disagree with you and you with them? Have you been swayed to moderate your points of view in any way since you first arrived here? If so, please offer an example or two.

If not, then what has been the value beyond stroking your own ego?