I do not claim to understand what counts as experience or truth. I wish I did but I don’t think so.

I think the statement “Only when a statement agrees with that which actually is, can it be deemed to be true.” should be more properly worded as “Only when a statement agrees with my personal interpretation of what I have actually experience will I deem it to be true.” Which, by the way, is exactly what the religious fanatics should be saying. (I find if funny how the arguments of those on either extreme are basically the same).

please understand that TXStorm had been banned.

I do not want future readers to think that he choose not to respond because he was defeated or believes he is wrong. I wish to make it clear that I do not think he would have backed down yet (or ever) and nobody should draw any conclusions from a lack of a response on his (or her, not sure) part.

BTW the tactic you are employing is a rather simplistic one which sets yourself up as the only judge for what counts as “experience” and what counts as “truth.” Here is where we truly differ, for as I noted rather than setting a standard of proof as you have, as merely agreeing with some personal desired conclusion, I choose to allow reality to determine truth. Only when a statement agrees with that which actually is, can it be deemed to be true. With that, I am going to leave off this as it appears to me that you are merely trolling as you offered nothing so far but personal attacks and bold baseless proclamations.

Yes, this is where we disagree. I simply do not think that you come close to setting the hightest possible standards for evidience.

Neither of our choices as to what constitutes “proof” can have any impact on reality.

“Do not continue to make the mistake of assuming you alone know all and therefore wherever reality disagrees with you, reality must be mistaken. Reality is always right..” Give me a F’n break!!! Only an idiot would assume that that is true could be mistaken. Never have I claimed to know all. Throw your F’n logic books away and go experience life until you get some real understanding of it.

BTW, if you want to argue that I don’t know anything of your experience to this point, save it. All that means it that you didn’t through your F’n logic books away. Instead, tell me what you have experienced that makes my observations inadequate.

Rather than presuming that you know my life and my abilities better than I, rather than engaging in ad hominem, why not offer something on topic and constructive?

I set the highest possible standards for evidence, and yes I understand that this is where we disagree, but that you choose something else entirely in no way changes the nature of reality, or of knowledge. Do not continue to make the mistake of assuming you alone know all and therefore wherever reality disagrees with you, reality must be mistaken. Reality is always right..

Humilty does not require denying what one actually knows, only not pretending to know what one does not. So for instance were you interested in humility you would have refrained from presuming that you know all of my own experience, my abilities, and my knowledge. Do I need to point out that you chose another path entirely?

I do not care about your opinion of me, especially as you have explicitly stated that you have no interest in knowledge or reality. I choose to refute your insults and false assertions for those who read but do not post. Believe what you will, ignore questions, analogies, and refutations all you like, but know that there are many who do not post but who do read who appreciate the use of reason including the refutations and noting of the absence of answers to key questions. It is telling…

That’s beautiful. Even made me smile and it’s rare that an insult does that. Only one arrogant enough to think of any truly meaningful part of reality as “more simple” would see the humble acceptance that we don’t know as arrogant.

color of barns? Seems we have seen these analogies a while back on this same site. That posters questions weren’t answered either.

BTW, we can just stop. You are obviously a very intelligent person and should not feel any need to defend yourself or to correct any mistakes that may exist in my opinion of you.

Your post is right on… unfortunately neither you nor I are well equipped to speak of reality or truth. But, thanks for being overly polite.

By omiting the connection to reality, to truth, you deny any meaning to the term “intolerance” and as such necessitate that your argument fails.

If you truly believe something to be wrong what is the issue with being intolerant of it?

This entire site is intolerant of Christianity. In fact, I would say it is often hateful toward them. That said, if that is correct, this post would make you a bigot unless you would joyfully accept the same things being said about you.

I’ll say he was a monster. I’ll say he was a bigot. I’ll say that our society will be paying for his works for years to come. But I won’t say “I’m glad he’s dead.” This isn’t about vapidly deciding that he’s suddenly a wonderful person because he’s dead now. It’s simply basic humanist mores. I know not all atheists are humanists but many are.

But refusing to celebrate someone’s death doesn’t mean I must celebrate their life. Jerry Falwell was a wicked, hateful, bigot. I’m glad he can do no further harm. But I’m sad he had to die for that to happen.

The battle you speak of doesn’t look like a battle that WILL be won. As long as people are willing to give their lives for others will, there will be others telling them it’s wrong.
Both are born every day I’m sure.

Good point as always though.