A recent exchange of comments between me and Niki, starting with this one, has made me think about what “atheism” really means.
Technically, it’s simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. That much, I believe, can’t be disputed (even though theists like to say that we are simply “in denial of God”, or that we have “faith in the non-existance of God”). vjack of Atheist Revolution seems to confirm it:
Skepticism and atheism are clearly separable and far from synonymous. Most atheists are skeptics, however many are not. I have encountered atheists who believe in a number of supernatural entities besides gods. Many skeptics are atheists; many more are not.
I certainly can’t disagree with that. But, in the discussion I mentioned above, my own reply to Niki, in a way, “betrayed” me:
Niki: to me, “atheism” includes “there is no such thing as the supernatural”. Other people may (and do) redefine the term…
Wait a minute. Am I not contradicting myself, there? Am I not “adding” to the dictionary definition of atheism?
In a way, you can say that I am. However, I believe that it all depends on the reasons that lead to one’s atheism.
If you’re an atheist because “you felt like it”, it’s possible that you believe in things like an immortal soul, reincarnation, ESP, talking to the dead, and so on. If so, then, technically, since you don’t believe in any gods, you’re still an atheist… but you’re guilty of as much wishful thinking — or, to use the more PC term, faith — as the average theist. You’re as irrational as they are. Both let desires or fears overcome rational judgment.
If, however, you’re an atheist because you’ve thought about it, looked at the available evidence for each claim, and decided that you won’t believe in any mumbo-jumbo without evidence, even though that belief may “feel good”, then — and this is a claim that’ll ensure I’ll be called “arrogant by some — you simply can’t believe in an immortal soul (zero evidence), reincarnation (zero evidence), ESP (zero evidence), and so on.
They all fail the same “tests” that should lead one away from believing in things without evidence. Why have double standards? Why demand evidence for a god but not for “something, unseen and completely undetactable by science, remains of you after you die”? Could it be that such a belief is comforting, so you refrain from asking for evidence? Isn’t that exactly why theists believe in their “all-loving” deity? The belief its comforting, so you believe despite a total lack of evidence?
Note that I’m not trying to expand the dictionary definition of “atheist” here (not that I could, even if I wanted to). My point is just this: if you’re an atheist because you don’t engage in wishful thinking and demand evidence, it makes no sense not to demand evidence for everything else. Therefore (2nd arrogance warning! :)), a rational atheist shouldn’t believe in the supernatural.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - whether they’re about a god, a dragon in the garage, or “I’m the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte”.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I am an atheist who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods or in the existence of the supernatural.
There are, however some theists who believe in a god or gods, but they claim that their god is not supernatural. These people are more likely to be pantheists or deists, I suspect.
There are also atheists who do not believe in a god of gods, but who believe in “spirituality”. I am never too sure what this means, but I think it might be code for “the supernatural.”
Mind you, one can theoretically not believe in the existence of a supernatural god, but believe in the existence of the soul (another supernatural idea)
This would just mean that they don’t believe in a head supernatural honcho - but that they believe that individual souls exist.
I don;’t believe in either the existence of god or the existence of the supernatural, or the existence of spirits or the existence of souls.
Though I understand how the belief in these things can be of comfort to people.
The thing is, I have known atheists who did believe in other supernatural entities (e.g., ghosts). This belief in ghosts is irrational, but it cannot make the person any less of an atheist. Someone who does not believe in the supernatural is generally thought of as a naturalist or materialist. I would count myself here. In addition to atheism, I am also a naturalist/materialist.
first time poster here(great blog by the way pedro, i check it daily):
i consider myself an atheist because i do not believe there is any evidence for an entity such as the christian god or any other human-founded religious type being. when i think of spirituality, i think of being at peace with myself & those around me, one with the moment, aware of the beauty of life around me and how fleeting it is. at present, there is no test or evidence for any manner of supernatural things, such as god(s), the soul, afterlife, etc. so i will not have faith or hope that any of these exist. i prefer to dwell honestly in reality and not be scared of my own eventual death. it makes me love & appreciate life all the more.
that being said, i’ve wanted to put this question out there, what do you think (pedro & anyone else who wants to comment) about psychedelic substances such as peyote, magic mushrooms, lsd and salvia divinorum? As someone who has experimented with a few of these, I have experienced things that I cannot understand, that were much greater than me. I felt a different connection to myself and reality around me and it opened my mind up to areas I could not even explain to you now.
having said that, I make no claims to any of these substances showing me the “truth” or a god. it could all be an elaborate hoax my brain is playing on me when i allow these substances into my body. So, basically to sum it up, I have experienced what I would say is the supernatural; a spiritual realm and state of being. So can you see my plight? An atheist who has had an experience that I cannot deny or ignore on a level i cannot understand. Wishful thinking that it is something more? Any responses from someone else who has had a similar experience?
thanks for reading and sorry if it is a bit off topic!
I’m an atheist and I have a different view on things. I think you can believe in some super natural things depending on how you look at them. For instance you said ESP. I believe there is another sense people can develop. Not in any kind of spooky way though. Much more in how animals can detect things like fear and what not. I simply think humans have these natural instincts too, but have regressed them due to speaking being a much more effective way of communicating. I say this based off personal experience.
Since you personally quoted me in your post, I feel it’s ok to express my personal oppinion here, too: I think if reason lead you to atheism, you actually went only half the way: You saw religion, and said “oh, my, this is so unreasonable, let’s not believe in it, and stop thinking right now”. If you kept on thinking about your own position without predjudices, and maybe read up on some serious defenders of other positions (no, I’m not talking about some crackpot-creationists, I’m talking about e.g. pretty much any book on philosophy of mind written in the last 50 years), you might recognize that yours has it’s flaws, too, and in the end become a sceptic/agnostic. (Ok, maybe you won’t, but I did.)
Now, to the “wishful thinking” strawman: Don’t you think it’s quite bold to reduce a considerable branch of modern analytic philosophy to “wishful thinking” without even mentioning or refuting a single argument of them? The main question is not “is there an immaterial soul or not”. If that would be all there was, well, anybody in their right minds would reject it. The question is “how do we explain mental phenomena like consciousness, free will, qualia and stuff like that”. Now, many contemporary philosophers are of the oppinion that harcore-materialism can’t give a resaonable explanation for these phenomena. And, to quote Sherlock Holmes “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
(I don’t intend to convince you with these few sentences. I’m just trying to show you that there’s a lot more than just “wishful thinking” to it, that you don’t know about…)
Actually, Niki is right on. But you wouldn’t be able to see that yet.
Let me ask you a question. The color of my car is listed as “blue” and I have not had it repainted. Your eyes would definately tell you that my car was blue. Are your eyes correct? Not from a purely scientific stand-point. Scientifically my car is every color but blue. Blue is the color that it relects and does not absorb.
So, which is reality? Human perception with or without the assistance of machines?
[quote post="200"]Scientifically my car is every color but blue. Blue is the color that it relects and does not absorb.[/quote]
Actually what color something IS, isn’t the colors it ABSORBS, but reflects. So yes, the car, scientifically, is blue.
But that doesn’t matter because the entire analogy is a play on subjectivity. Perception. But perception doesn’t change reality. It CAN change how you feel, but no matter how much you feel like you can spread your wings and fly off of the top of a large building, it’s not going to change the outcome.
Kren,
I know that it is a simple matter of agreement and tradition that ultimately makes us decide that my car is blue. But…
How is something not what it absorbs but what it rejects? I know they aren’t the exact words you used but I believe the question still holds.
You are correct that this is about subjectivity and perception. I also agree perception doesn’t change reality. But we should be intimately familiar with the stengths and weaknesses of the tools we choose to use and discard. The whole point is everything we can use to examine reality has weaknesses. I mean everything, including the scientific method.
It seems such a pity to me that many people are so quick to throw out the knowledge of centuries of our human-elders with what, from my angle, appears to be such a cursory evaluation. What’s even worse is that most people base that evaluation mainly on our experiences with other people who are themselves groping around trying to figure this out.
It seems terrible to me that people who should be looking for the truth everywhere would limit their search to science or religion. I mean, you know that your phone is your phone, your computer is your computer, your house is your house but, what the heck are you? Everything I know seems a tad small in comparison to that question.
Kren,
This is the post I would have expected more discussino on based on our follow-up discussions in other posts. So, …
How is something not what it absorbs but what it rejects?
Where else in your search for truth do your perceptive/subjective abilities/limitations get in the way?
how might you overcome these obstacles?
Of course, you could always determine that something is based on consensus but, what if we said “Daryl’s car isn’t blue” and understood that to mean that we would perceive it to be blue? Would that be any less/more accurate?
You are a very smart person, don’t limit your understanding of all existence to what has already been proven through science (I’m not saying you are).
Daryl,
[quote post="200"]How is something not what it absorbs but what it rejects?
Where else in your search for truth do your [/quote]
It’s just how WE define it as what it color it “IS”. Neither one of us could be right or wrong about this arguement, because you can choose to say that what an object ABSORBS is what it IS. (Like you are what you eat). My arguement is that science is based on what us humans can observe. Since it is impossible to see the colors of light something has absorbed and not reflected, we can only say that said object IS the color left over.
[quote post="200"]Where else in your search for truth do your perceptive/subjective abilities/limitations get in the way?
how might you overcome these obstacles?[/quote]
There are many ways that perception and subjection can get in the way of the truth, to many people.
Yet with both we can overcome these obstacles using rational thinking, and science.
For instance, I think it was about a year ago that I read an article in Science magazine which explained a certain stars position. The star shouldn’t have been seen from Earth, because it was behind some huge thing (I’m not sure if it was a planet or another star) BUT it was the since light is affected by gravity, the gravity of said body bent the light and the planet appeared to be to the side of the planet.
Since our crafty scientists knew that gravity played a part with light, they were able to determine the real location of said star… behind the other huge thing.
Humans know enough to not be fooled by our own perception. We can overcome subjective and perceptive limitations by being rational.
Kren,
That leads to more questions on my part. Questions like, just how sure are they the star is where they think it is? Has someone touched it? However, the important thing, for me anyway, is to keep asking and to remember that my perception is permanently skewed.
Daryl,
You do realize that continuously assuming that you know less and less can only lead to the idea that you know nothing… an obvious oxymoron.
Well, no.
It can only lead to the knowledge that I only know that I know nothing. Which is at least a little knowledge even if the sentence doesn’t make it obvious. It’s more important to realize that though I may believe I know something, anything, I can be mistaken. I do not trust my senses or my sciences or my interpretation of mankinds past knowledge (the Bible, etc.). I am always questioning my understanding and refuse to hitch my wagon to any one method regardless of how perfect it looks. Why? Because…. it only looks perfect through my imperfect mind. Now that’s fun to think about! Where are the flaws in the scientific method?
What’s even more fun is when you start combining the tenents of scientific study and applying them in an attempt at understanding what the whole of reality truely is. For example, one could look at what physics can teach us about things on a molecular and quantum level and ask, “Just how many things exists in the universe?” But one might not like the answer. Then, when you read religious texts with that new understanding, things can get interesting. You might even interpret things differently and ask yourself “how did He/They know that?”.
Daryl,
[quote post="200"]interpretation of mankinds past knowledge (the Bible, etc.). I am always questioning my understanding and refuse to hitch my wagon to any one method regardless of how perfect it looks.[/quote]
I beg to differ (at least a little) with this statement.
Would you question that 2 2=… anything BUT 4?
I will assume that you won’t (for the sake of argument) and that you have “Hitched” onto the fact that it does, in fact… equal four.
There’s nothing wrong with that… it’s tried and true.
Much like physics, which is basically a more complicated version of the of many different equations that will always equal the correct answer.
Minds, yes… are imperfect. But that doesn’t mean that 2 2 can equal… NOT 4.
Reality, will always be reality, no matter what the perception. (TX eat your heart out)
[quote post="200"]one could look at what physics can teach us about things on a molecular and quantum level and ask, “Just how many things exists in the universe?” But one might not like the answer. Then, when you read religious texts with that new understanding, things can get interesting. You might even interpret things differently and ask yourself “how did He/They know that?”.[/quote]
First, just because one doesn’t like what he finds, doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Secondly, there’s no need to assume the existence of a God to explain why people knew things. We didn’t find out that the Earth isn’t the center of the solar system by divine inspiration.
We know that because we figured it out on our own.
Kren,
2 2 = 4 because we have decided it to be so. But, 2 and 4 are only concepts created by man and have nothing to do with reality at all in any sense outside of the human mind.
Yes, comfort doesn’t make truth but it will have an aweful lot to do with most people’s willingness to accept/think about it.
Secondly, I never said that was a need to assume a God at all. In fact, I never talked about God at all in that post. My whole point here is that every system we develop, rational or not, is flawed in many, many ways.
Kren,
[quote post="200"]My arguement is that science is based on what us humans can observe. [/quote] Yes, my point is exactly that we our perceptions are screwed up.
“Just how many things exists in the universe?” According to physics, as far as I can tell, only One. From dust we were made and to dust we will return. At least physically.
[quote post="200"]Yes, comfort doesn’t make truth but it will have an aweful lot to do with most people’s willingness to accept/think about it.
Secondly, I never said that was a need to assume a God at all. In fact, I never talked about God at all in that post. My whole point here is that every system we develop, rational or not, is flawed in many, many ways.[/quote]
I agree that I had mistaken the existence of God argument. My apologies, strawmen are decidedly dishonest and that was purely a mistake on my part.
But I disagree that every system we develop is flawed, because truth is truth, and cannot be flawed, therefore any system that we develop that = the truth every time is actually perfect. As flawed as our minds are, they are capable of finding truth.
[quote post="200"]2 2 = 4 because we have decided it to be so. But, 2 and 4 are only concepts created by man and have nothing to do with reality at all in any sense outside of the human mind.[/quote]
Yes, we defined those concepts with specific symbols and sounds that COINCIDE with reality to more clearly understand reality. IMO they have much to do with reality, otherwise we would have and COULD have never taken the time and effort TO define them. 2 2=4 because that’s true… regardless of what we decide.
I’m unfamiliar with the physics theory that there is only one thing in the universe… are you talking about energy itself?
If so, I don’t see how it’s relevant, so I would (kindly) ask you to to explain. If not… then you’ve lost me, but I’m definitely willing to learn.
[quote]2 2 = 4 because we have decided it to be so.[/quote]
How do you figure this? (pun intended)
By your reasoning then reality simply does not exist, 2 2=123148678 is identical in truth value (that is to say that when compared to reality, the claim perfectly matches reality) as 2 2=4
So if I take 2 apples and then take 2 more apples by your reasoning I cannot have 4 apples. Since of course I ALWAYS have four apples in such a scenario, necessarily your argument is fatally flawed.
Your claim that this has nothing to do with reality has no basis in reality, as the absence of any argument or evidence being offered to support this assertion indicates. I have offered a simple first grade example off how this infact relates to reality, and in fact was driven by reality.
You are putting the cart before the horse when you claim that mathematics preceeds or is in any fashion separate from or prior to reality. Mathematics, just as logic, is merely the tools we use to describe reality. They are the rules and effects we have learned FROM reality, nothing more.
All of the preceptions nonsense is at best a red herring.
Kren,
2 2 = 4 Yes. I agree with what you said about this in your last post. The point being that our symbols could have been put together in any order 123546 for example. That there is a concept underneath it that is more important and that is what they are trying to teach and talk about. That there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Having mathematical support for something does not make it true. Many people see mathematical/scientific “evidence” and stop questioning. I don’t think that is a good practice.
TXStorm, first of all, enjoy your Shi apples. No, really, I’m not at all surprised that you would think this perception conversation to be a red herring. Suffice it to say that I think not. In the martial arts I could show you things that you would never be able to explain or understand but would none the less be happening. Why would that be? …. Because your perception of what was happening would never let you understand. In fact, some of those things are effective because the opponent doesn’t understand what is actually happening.
Yes, I said you would never understand it. How can I say that? Easily. First of all, it is not something that can be proven in what you would consider a scientific manner. Second, it is not something that is easily understood in a rational manner. Lastly, your tone always shows that you are not here to learn anything.
So, instead of setting on your high-horse and declaring it a red herring. Show me something or keep your attitude because it does not impress me and definately rips your false position of being logical out from under you.
[quote] In the martial arts I could show you things that you would never be able to explain or understand but would none the less be happening.[/quote]
One who offers profoundly arrogant (and equally profoundly ignorant) comments such as this, ought not also make assertions such as this:
[quote] In the martial arts I could show you things that you would never be able to explain or understand but would none the less be happening. Why would that be? …. Because your perception of what was happening would never let you understand.[/quote]
Contrary to your presumptions of omniscience, the fact is that you have no knowledge nor any basis upon which to make any such claims about my own experiences, knowledge, and abilities.
And yet from this basis of profound arrogance and ignorance you further your ad hominem with: [quote] Lastly, your tone always shows that you are not here to learn anything.[/quote] This is your response to having your bold yet completely baseless claims refuted by objective, verifiable facts.
As for the rest of your rant, and yes that is all it was as you offer nothing of merit, differing from your other posts only in that you limit your comments in this last one to merely personal attacks, such personal attacks speak loudly if not well of your arguments as well as your person.
Rather than asserting that you are right because you are right, because you feel you are right, why not offer CIVIL, HONEST, REASONED discussion and verifiable evidence? Why jump to personal attacks instead as your first and only line of defense?
I am always up for learning, but learning necessitates RATIONALITY. There is nothing of merit to be learned from one who reacts emotionally to simple refutations of notions which are by their very nature without meaning, and less when the only tactic in the arsenal of such an individual is that of ad hominem.
However by all means ignore the very simple and clear refutation of your claims about reality. I am perfectly willing to allow your posts and your conduct to speak for your position.
TXStorm,
First of all, I apologize. After I had posted that I felt ashamed of myself. What I should have simply said is that your posting style is, to me at least, almost always full of the same crap that I was just guilty of. Those attacks did speak loudly of me personally and not in a kind way. That was truly not a moment to be proud of. I don’t think it can logically be said to have any bearing on my points themselves.
The martial arts comment. I said that with some understanding of how you think and learn. It was not without basis, even though it definately could be wrong, I don’t think it would prove to be. You see, the things I’m talking about don’t make logical sense, at least not to anyone I’ve ever meet.
That, however, has no effect in any way as to the poorness of my treatment of you. I am truly sorry.
I would agree that 2 2 = 4. However, I don’t wish to keep my understanding of reality at such a simple level.
I would still like to understand how the discussion of perception is a red herring however.
Daryl,
I’ve been wondering about your martial arts comment.
Can you elaborate about how it’s “not logical”?
Well,
That’s kind of difficult. It is even hard to explain what happens. There are methods of, uhm, what I’ll call “trapping people in space” and taking an opponent’s thoughts just to start with. Controlling your or another’s actions, to any degree, is just the trivial beginning of martial arts. Taking their mind is the next step. I don’t even understand what happens after that. It is not that the physical acts are not logical. It’s that the acts and results only become logical when you have a deeper understanding of how a human works. But, you cannot come to an intimate understanding of how a human works through science. At least I don’t see how because so much of what happens is hidden from inspection (motivation, intention, etc). I should have said, it is completely logical but, as far as I can tell, no way scientifically explainable.
But, that’s just the start I guess. It’s not like I know the art even though I’ve been doing it for 24 years. Many times I leave training wondering if I have learned anything in the past.
As for your backhanded insult concerning my “style” I would simply point out that while you can continue your ad hominems all day long, they will never serve to disprove any point made, nor will they make the sound refutations cease to be sound. They will simply give more weight to already massive mountain of evidence that there is nothing whatsoever supporting your claims.
Of course you have no basis whatsoever for the claims of your own omniscience. You do not know anything at all about me and my experience, including but not limited to my own experiences with martial arts, so here again your presumptions of omniscience have led you far away from not only the truth, but even a remotely defensible position.
Given your abuse of the notion of logic, as well as your conclusions which not only do not but cannot follow from your premises, it seems that the first step in making any assertions about whether or not something is “logical” is to familiarize yourself with logic.
Specifically in your example, to read it most generously, your entire argument boils down to your own personal belief that your own personal belief trumps all possible explanation, and reality itself. If you belief that you have seen X then you assert that X must exist despite the clear fact that it does not. Similarly if you were to see a mirage in the desert you would have to assert that it in fact exists, even after going to the spot and discovering that in fact it does not exist, and having others explain the factual basis for the illusion. One of the important problems with this sort of thinking is that it denies reality in the pretense of describing reality. Of course this means that the claims will always be without basis and merit. The truth of a claim is determined by comparison to reality, not by the degree of faith you have in it. You can really really really *feel* that the earth is flat all day long, but that strength of conviction and faith will never make the earth actually be flat.
Hopefully the illusion example demonstrates why the notion of putting perception above reason and reality is fatally flawed, with no need of further explanation.
TXStorm,
That was not a back-handed insult. It was a front-handed one ;> It would probably be physical if you talked to me this way in person. You see I abhor your treatment of other human beings.
[quote post="200"]Of course you have no basis whatsoever for the claims of your own omniscience. You do not know anything at all about me and my experience, including but not limited to my own experiences with martial arts, so here again your presumptions of omniscience have led you far away from not only the truth, but even a remotely defensible position.[/quote]
Actually, I’ve got years and years of teaching martial arts to base my statement on. I KNOW you cannot get it simply by the way you move your words. Verbal, mental and physical understanding are, after all is said and done, related. So yes, contrary to what you believe I know when a student is ready because, that’s what a teacher does.
[quote post="200"]Specifically in your example, to read it most generously, your entire argument boils down to your own personal belief that your own personal belief trumps all possible explanation, and reality itself. If you belief that you have seen X then you assert that X must exist despite the clear fact that it does not.[/quote]
Wow, that was reading it most generously! It would actually be most helpful if you tried to understand what I said before you responded. If you did try, I’m sorry but you totally missed it. I’ll give you a pointer - I never talked about putting perception before reality. How exactly do you experience reality? Do you perceive it? So, you would complain about perception but then use those same tools to build your reality. I find that extremely funny.
Daryl,
[quote] You see I abhor your treatment of other human beings.[/quote]
I can easily understand why you would take this position. If you were to recognize the inherent value of other persons, you would have to deny the whole god thing, so you must “abhor” those who love reality and understand that other beings are to be respected and taken at face value. That I am perfectly willing to note errors in arguments, or to point out false assertions, including bold and absurd assertions (based upon the delusion of omniscience) such as this: [quote]Actually, I’ve got years and years of teaching martial arts to base my statement on. I KNOW you cannot get it simply by the way you move your words.[/quote] is nothing more than my own willingness to recognize that you are not the ruler of all, nor are you inherently more valuable than everyone else you are trying to run roughshod over. Notice where you have engaged in personal attacks and futile efforts to boost your own ego by insulting others, I’ve limited my own comments to what you have said. The difference here is crucial for it is the difference between the profound arrogance inherent to the position assuming an infinitely higher status for yourself, and the position of recognizing that all moral agents are of equal worth and deserving of basic respect.
If I missed your intended meaning, we can only fault the words used for as you can see, I used only the words and arguments you offered as representational of your own position. If your position actually differs from what you have said, then of course the sound refutations offered only apply to the arguments you actually offered.
[quote post="150"]
As for what you strangely refer to as a “belief” in logic, to examine whether this works compare it to reality. In EVERY instance you will find that in fact logic works. The reason for this? Because logic is merely the tool we use to describe reality.
No, you will find that logic works to your satisfaction. I will find that my perceptive capabilities are always limiting my ability to perceive truth. For instance, in my last college level organic chemistry class the teacher said “when mixture A is combined with mixture B the particles will mix randomly”. However, in my first college level physics class we were taught “all objects exert a force on all other objects”. If I am watching these chemicals mix then I am exerting a force, I am part of an equation I cannot understand through science and I cannot logically conclude that the particles mix randomly. To say it is random is a farce, to use your perception of it as proof is a farce.
Or, maybe a more simple example. What I say is almost never what another person hears. They hear what they thought I meant as it has been filtered through their past experiences. Now let me ask you, from a logical perspective, if I say X meaning X but your hear X meaning Y and we don’t clear up the confusino whose reality of what just happened during that conversation is correct? Lets compare answers over the next few posts.[/quote]
This is from another conversation we have had on this same blog.
While I disagree with your last post here I would like to be able to communicate with you in a peaceful manner. Alas, I don’t think that possible.
You see, you make assumptions about where I am coming from and who I am. About how I value other people but, would not be willing to see them as assumptions.
Yes, I abhor your treatment of other people and to presume that you speak without bias can, from my experiences with you, only mean one of two things: You are lying or you don’t know yourself.
As for that, I am done with this conversation.
[quote post="200"]If I missed your intended meaning, we can only fault the words used for as you can see, I used only the words and arguments you offered as representational of your own position.[/quote]
Actually, sometimes its not the words but the reader or the way in which they are read. People with agendas, people who expect to disagree and people don’t actually read with an intent to understand tend to get things wrong.
We can only read what is actually written. I do not pretend to have some magical abilities to know what is intended is not what is written. Intellectual honesty requires that we not expect others to simply accept the conclusions without sound basis for them, nor are we expected to simply mindlessly accept that there is something “out there” that the author intends which is somehow defensible, even when or especially when the author refuses to actually relate this something.
[quote] While I disagree with your last post here I would like to be able to communicate with you in a peaceful manner. Alas, I don’t think that possible[/quote]
Of course that is entirely your own choice. All that is required is honesty, civility, and a willingness to discuss matters intellectually (reasonably).
[quote] You see, you make assumptions about where I am coming from and who I am. [/quote]
Actually as you well know, I am doing nothing of the sort. I have pointed out what is necessitated by your statements, and I have given you the benefit of the doubt in that I do respect you enough as an individual to assume that you are not simply lying or insane, therefore actually believe what you claim to believe. Your criticism is nothing more than I am simply taking your words at their actual meaning, in other words you are upset that I am giving you the basic respect of reading what you have actually written. How can you expect otherwise?
[quote] Yes, I abhor your treatment of other people and to presume that you speak without bias can, from my experiences with you, only mean one of two things: You are lying or you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
Still with the ad hominems, but at least this time you add in strawman tactics. Why not cite evidence? Where exactly are the examples that you seem to believe that you are relying upon for your baseless assertions about my intentions and attitudes? Why not drop the presumptions of knowing my mind and my experiences better than I could? Why not show the basic respect for persons that is common to honest intellectual discussions? What is so frightening about respecting others?
TXStorm,
[quote post="200"]Why not cite evidence? Where exactly are the examples that you seem to believe that you are relying upon for your baseless assertions about my intentions and attitudes?[/quote]
Right now, the most recent ones are in the “You Atheists Don’t Have An Open Mind” posting on this site. I will wait your explanations in that section.
If you read what was written, I suggest you re-read it because you didn’t understand it in either of these two ways:
- the way it was intended
- the way the majority would understand it.
In fact, I don’t think you understood it anywhere on that Continuum.
Claiming that you have cited evidence is not itself a citation of evidence. I still await ANY example of any support for any of your claims, in particular I would love to see your support for your presumptions of omniscience.
Similarly claiming that you did not mean what you said, because of your own personal belief that others can read your mind (re: your “the way that it was intended” excuse) does not make the words mean something other than what they mean.
As for your other excuse, I simply note that still you have not offered any evidence to support this or any other claim. Why continue to go so far off topic to simply avoid offering any sort of support for your claims? Why not drop the claim if they are so void of any basis?
TXStorm,
Evidence of the correctness of my statement about your inability to understand (my omniscience as you call it) can only be had in person. Do you want to meet?
As for your last two statements - here is an idea - go answer the questions posted in that forum and stop hiding behind your mouth.
So now you have gone to trying physical threats?
Why not address the fact that your claims about my experiences, my knowledge, my mental states, and my life are simply false since they fail to match my actual experiences, my actual knowledge, my actual mental states, and my actual life? There is no problem with my understanding of this, rather there is a problem between your claims and reality. This means necessarily that your claims are false.
All of your questions have been answered. There is no point in trying that deception.
Rather than continuously trying to ruin the blog with your attempts to start flame wars, why not take this to the forum so as not to waste the valuable space on the blog?
No, There was no physical threat there at all. I know next to nothing about you. I do know how you come across on this site and that is what I am discribing. Be it your intention or not, it is how I perceive you. It may also be how many others perceive you.
You may have the last word on this part of the discussion because, frankly, its a useless waste of energy for us to continue this way.
I will continue our discussion in “You Atheists don’t have an open mind” but, I am done here.
Please forgive my transgressions, I have already forgiven yours.