Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Edwardo Piet]

Put up or shut up???

How about where the fuck is God? Put up or shut up?

[Delicate]

Easy there, cowboy. Don't go all ragin atheist on us.

Take a deep breath, read, think, and respond. Leave the thoughtless rage out of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol I'm not angry

[Thumpalumpacus]

Already been covered, I won't be repeating myself.  Are you done?

Don't have to repeat yourself, but you could point to where you talked about it before.

Odds are, you didn't though.

It's not a matter of a particular adjustment being justified or unjustified. It's a matter of you creating an unfair scenario in which you can never be demonstrated to be incorrect. 

The general tone of your posts suggests that it's being done deliberately.

Every adjustment was predicated on a clearer understanding of what exactly atheists are trying to say, and what criteria need to be logically met in order for the claim to be true. 

The adjustments were fair, not unfair. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

In other words, put up or shut up.

Your requirement for evidence here is a striking example of a double-standard.

[Delicate]

Don't have to repeat yourself, but you could point to where you talked about it before.

Odds are, you didn't though.


Every adjustment was predicated on a clearer understanding of what exactly atheists are trying to say, and what criteria need to be logically met in order for the claim to be true. 

The adjustments were fair, not unfair. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

In other words, put up or shut up.

Your requirement for evidence here  is a striking example of a double-standard.

I find atheists to be fantastic asserters of claims, but terrible supporters of said claims.

Yours is a classic example. Confident assertion, no support. In other words, no explanation of why an intelligent person would believe you.

[Athene]

It's not a matter of a particular adjustment being justified or unjustified. It's a matter of you creating an unfair scenario in which you can never be demonstrated to be incorrect. 

The general tone of your posts suggests that it's being done deliberately.

Every adjustment was predicated on a clearer understanding of what exactly atheists are trying to say, and what criteria need to be logically met in order for the claim to be true. 

The adjustments were fair, not unfair. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

In other words, put up or shut up.

You've already admitting to rigging the game, honey...so, I'm through playing.

I'm not sifting between your piles of horseshit to prove what everyone already knows...and what you've already copped to.

[Delicate]

Don't have to repeat yourself, but you could point to where you talked about it before.

Odds are, you didn't though.


Every adjustment was predicated on a clearer understanding of what exactly atheists are trying to say, and what criteria need to be logically met in order for the claim to be true. 

The adjustments were fair, not unfair. If you disagree, show me some evidence.

In other words, put up or shut up.

You've already admitting to rigging the game, honey...so, I'm through playing.

I'm not sifting in between your piles of horseshit to prove what everyone already knows...and what you've already copped to.

So reason and logic is rigging the game.

Who says atheists have to be rational?

[Edwardo Piet]

Seriously Delicate, where is God? Why can't I see him?

[Delicate]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

[Anomalocaris]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Seriously, delicate, we can see them. Pull the bible out of your cunt, flush it down the toilet, and read a physics text.