Tatyana originally said:

But to attribute their survival solely to divine intervention…well, most of the things believers believe in sound crackling-silly to me.

I had left out “solely” in my subsequent attempts to accurately represent what Tatyana had stated, which was a proofreading mistake on my part. Corrections follow.
The first part of her statement, “But to attribute their survival solely to divine intervention,” was talking about ALL believers, according to Tatyana, so the following accurately states what she meant:

Believers of any faith attribute their [miners] survival solely to divine intervention.

I had neglected to add “solely” in my previous comment.

Similarly, as Christian believers comprise a subset of the state of believers, the following is an accurate representation of what Tatyana wrote, as it applies to Christian believers.

Believers of the Christian faith attribute their [miners] survival solely to divine intervention.

Whether or not one agrees with that statement, it does NOT represent a “twisting” of Tatyana’s words. What she said about all believers, applies to Christian believers, or to Hindu or Muslim believers, for that matter.

But to attribute their survival solely to divine intervention…well, most of the things believers believe in sound crackling-silly to me.

I wrote:

You have set up a straw man of Christian “believers,” attributing to them a belief of “solely to divine intervention”,which is much more common in Islam than in Christendom.

Tatyana replied

..you twist what i said in order to fit your vison of my argument;…. Latest examples:-I didn’t erect strawman re: Christianbelievers. Nowhere I specifically singled out Christians, in particular. Christian or not, I find ALL “believers” silly (to put it mildly

Through various back-and forth, I had previously come to the conclusion that those who were doing the “attributing their survival to divine intervention” were the miners underground who were believers, who most likely would have been Christian.

In any event, I will go with Tatyana’s latest “correction,” that she meant that

Believers of any faith attribute their [miners] survival to divine intervention.

Who comprises the set of believers? A by no means complete set of believers would be as follows: Believers= [Bahé¡’é­s + Christians +Druze+ Hindus + Jews + Muslims]. Any statement that Tatyana makes about believers apply to any subset of the set of believers. Because Hindus are a subset of the set of all believers, the following statement is an accurate representation of what Tatyana means.

Believers of the Hindu faith attribute their [miners] survival to divine intervention.

Similarly, the following statement is an accurate representation of what Tatyana means.

Believers of the Christian faith attribute their [miners] survival to divine intervention.

Sorry, Tatyana, that does not constitute a twisting of your words. That you consider it so is a salient example of muddle-headed thinking.

“ Tatyana: “Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation.”
Gringo:I hope that you wrote this in jest. ”

That is “bullying?” Your fantasies about Italians and baseball bats? That says a lot more about you and your atttude about Italians than it does about me. That is a prime example of muddle-headed thinking- not your first on this thread- and is a good example why it is ultimately a waste of time to “dialogue” with you. Your thinking and writing lack clarity.

It sounds as though you’re saying you’re sure that prayer is a waste of precious breath—although I suppose you might just be meaning you’re sure that breath is precious in such a situation (with which I can agree).

I have explained, per your request (yes, request; you were NOT asking nicely] why I invoked “divine intervention”.

I’m bored with you because of your style of conversation. You listen to yourself, not to me; you twist what i said in order to fit your vison of my argument; you generalize w/o basis; you are pedantic w/o being interesting.

Latest examples:
-I didn’t erect strawman re: Christianbelievers. Nowhere I specifically singled out Christians, in particular. Christian or not, I find ALL “believers” silly (to put it mildly. It’s because I am a tolerant person, charitable towards religiously-afflicted). That strawman is exclusively of your own making. Once again: you pick selectively from your opponent; you noticed “Jesuit” from my phrase and used it for a speech about Catholics, your family and whatnot – but you failed to register the 2nd part of my sentence, WHY I used it, mainly: I compared you to Jesuit style of argument because you twist my words. Which you continue to do.

– your bullying tone, I quote:
Tatyana:
“Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation.”
I hope that you wrote this in jest.

You hope? And what if didn’t [write it in jest] – what, you well send a bunch of Italians with baseball bats after me?
This tone of unverbalised threats is very characteristic and frankly, boring.

Now I hope do not hear from you again.

a true “non-believer” cares not a jot about extensive load of religion…

Why have you been commenting on this thread about faith, if you “care not a jot” about it?

We are just not interested.

You are “just not interested” in giving accurate representations. You have set up a straw man of Christian “believers,” attributing to them a belief of “solely to divine intervention”, which is much more common in Islam than in Christendom. That your representation is inaccurate is something you “care not a jot” about: ”you are such a bore!”

We are just not interested. But you are

I am interested in the truth, in accurately representing what people believe. But you are not.

If I heard a Bible-thumper stating that most atheists wanted to burn Christians at the stake, I would reply that is a falsehood. Most atheists want to be left alone. But according to you, were I to do so, in the interest of accurately representing what people believe, you would reply that ”you are such a bore!”

Ciao.

Lol!!

I don’t claim the answers are revealed to me. I doubt these revelations, and by having doubt the host of the blog comes down to try to brand me as saying I know the riddles of the universe? I don’t know the riddles of the universe any more than I believe that the universe was designed with a plan for me, this is the humble position. We only have each other to rely on. You have the nerve to say that I’m offensive and arrogant?! You can’t be serious. Nothing has held back the people of South America more than faith and superstition and magical thinking.

you are such a bore!

a true “non-believer” cares not a jot about extensive load of religion. Just like an adult is not thinking about twists of plots of fairy tales that children hold so dear.
(there might be exceptions; a scientist studying old manuscripts, f.i.)

We are just not interested.

But you are.

Or, and about “Jesuit”. I’m glad to broaden your horizons. The word is used now (for some time, etymologists will tell you for how long) outside of religious context. To mean a sly, dishonest, twisting tactic in argument. Like other, of similar words and expressions that originated in religious practice.