One piece of advice form that page I have yet to see in action (form
theists) on this board:
"
If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's okay. It doesn't mean
you are wrong. It means you don't have an answer. Go study and get
an answer and get back to him.
"
"Study" is the act of leaning, right?
All theists (Well, the ones I have seen on this board), when offered a
web site or a reference to read, never read it with the intention of
learning something, rather, they read it with the intention of bashing
it, whatever the text may state.
And this gem shows us why the standards for rationality on the theist
side are so low:
"
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it.
"
"at least occasionally" !!!!
Brock, and most theists on this board, would do well to read this
part:
"
Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. (...) But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating.
"
Here is an example that shows how bright these guys are. From the page
"Is atheism viable?":
"
In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be
possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is
possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt
the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility?
Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more
than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not
sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism.
They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no
evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream
factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon
and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
"
I will leave it to the first 10-year-old that comes along to show how
stupid this argument is.
_____________________________________
In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black
night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths
better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is
foolish to use blind, old men as guides.
-- Heinrich Heine
Here is one of those principles you agree with that I have yet to see
you put into practice.
"
Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. (...) But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating.
"
In nearly six months of reading your posts, a you know you do post a
heck of a lot, you have never admitted once you may have been wrong,
misinformed or that maybe you have misinterpreted something.
In fact, as a general tendency, theists suffer from this problem way
more than atheists.
You are always right.
We, your readers as a whole, are always at fault for not correctly
understanding you or your stupid aphorisms.
How long do you have left to live? 40years? 50 years? So, for all
those years your mind is already made up, you have figured everything
out and have made your bed? You now everything there is to know
regarding all the topics you ever discussed on this board? Is this why
you constantly repeat the same old arguments? Remember the following
post of mine:
Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible
is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with
me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are
wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster
Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar
crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the
measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Yes Brock, we know, we have heard it all before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which you responded:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, I've not articulated the position you indicate above. :)
Your reply proved you totally missed my point.
I was not just making fun of you, I had a message for you, but as
usual, you totally ignored it.
You always come back to the same arguments over and over, WHATEVER the
topic. What are those arguments of yours? See in my Bla Bla text
above, they are all there, although I may have forgotten a few of
them.
And your little smileys :)? They are infuriating.
Maybe you think they are cute, but I believe you have no idea how to
actually use them in such a medium.
And you wonder why we lack respect and resort to abusive language?
You think it is because of what you call new atheism?
I have got news for you, it is not becasue of new atheism, whatever
that maybe.
While you ascribe our behaviour towards you to new atheism, you fail
to understand, and to grow from such an understanding, why such
language is used.
You do not deserve respect. Some would say you deserve contempt. I am
not sure. I will settle for indifference for now, but leaning towards
contempt.
__________________________________________________
Morality I regard, but I do not believe there is such a thing as God.
-- George Holyoake
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote: > In nearly six months of reading your posts, a you know you do post a > heck of a lot, you have never admitted once you may have been wrong, > misinformed or that maybe you have misinterpreted something.
It sounds like a contrived conclusion. I simply note that I respond as best as I can, if the responses are not sufficient, I try to clarify; if the clarifications are deemed not sufficient, I frequently question the premises by which such evaluations are made. If after repeated responses questions of sufficiency continue, I do feel free to question the presumption of such evaluations.
> You are always right.
I have not made such a claim.
> We, your readers as a whole, are always at fault for not correctly > understanding you or your stupid aphorisms.
I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of misunderstanding, or what I affectionately think of as fallacy by "bong und blintz":
"Goldmember: Would you like a shmoke und a pancake? Austin Powers: A what? Goldmember: A shmoke und a pancake. You know, a flapjack und a shigarette? No? Shigar und a waffle? No? Pipe und a crepe? No? Bong und a blintz? No? Well, then there ish no pleashing you. Austin Powers: That's not right... "[1]
I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for reasons that are less than commendable.
> How long do you have left to live? 40years? 50 years? So, for all > those years your mind is already made up, you have figured everything > out and have made your bed?
Rather, I am a simple sheep in God's flock, and I rely upon Him completely for my protection, provision, care and very life.
> You now everything there is to know > regarding all the topics you ever discussed on this board?
Rather, I simply claim that as a sinner, without Christ I would've been lost eternally, but with Christ, I have a blessed and eternal life that is most wonderful. None of which is to my credit, instead it is all to God's credit for providing mercy and pardon that I am so thankful to accept.
> Is this why > you constantly repeat the same old arguments? Remember the following > post of mine:
> Bla Bla Bla I love jesus Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla The bible > is true Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla If you do not agree with > me Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You will go to hell > Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Fear god Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am right Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Objective truth of first principles Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla You are > wrong Bla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Westminster > Confession Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Wikipedia Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Love god is not the same as poke out your eye with a pointed stick > Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Cesar > crossed the Rubicon Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla BlaBla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla and 1.50$ will get you a coffee at most truck stops Bla Bla > Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla I am never wrong Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla mankind is not the > measurement of all things Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla Bla Bla I tremble before my god Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla Humans are born with sin Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Bla Bla Bla Only Jesus can save you from yourself Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla > Bla Or not :) Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
> Your reply proved you totally missed my point.
I didn't miss the point, I simply note that what you dismiss condescendingly above as conversational noise represents an evaluation of my posts that I don't share.
> I was not just making fun of you, I had a message for you, but as > usual, you totally ignored it.
Well, I just didn't agree with the point. Of course, that you found it edifying to specify it in a "making fun of you" form also isn't endearing.
> You always come back to the same arguments over and over, WHATEVER the > topic. What are those arguments of yours? See in my Bla Bla text > above, they are all there, although I may have forgotten a few of > them.
Consistency of position can have a virtue.
> And your little smileys :)? They are infuriating. > Maybe you think they are cute, but I believe you have no idea how to > actually use them in such a medium.
This seems much more a subjective aesthetic disagreement than anything else.
> And you wonder why we lack respect and resort to abusive language? > You think it is because of what you call new atheism?
I just note that the "new atheism" often validates such behavior and explicitly and unapologetically approves of it in interactions; which I don't see as a virtue.
> You do not deserve respect. Some would say you deserve contempt.
Tolerance for differing positions is noticeably lacking from such evaluations.
> I am > not sure. I will settle for indifference for now, but leaning towards > contempt.
And you think this represents atheism in a positive light? I have to disagree.
On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > You are always right.
> I have not made such a claim.
I did not state that you did.
It was a statement of fact.
In the time period I referred to, you never once wrote somehting like:
Sorry, I think I was wrong.
I may have misunderstood.
I did not know that.
I made an error.
etc.
Or even, just:
Sorry.
I guess your belief in Jesus and you behaviour are totally unrelated.
By never acknowledging that you may be wrong, you are in fact
maintaining that you are always right.
If you want to prove me wrong, just do some reseach and show me a few
posts, on this board, where you made statements similar to the ones I
wrote above.
> > We, your readers as a whole, are always at fault for not correctly
> > understanding you or your stupid aphorisms.
> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of
> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken
> great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists
> reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply
> respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding
> of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of
> misunderstanding,
See? Even now you will not admit that at times you may be wrong.
Again, it is the reader that either misunderstands or pretends to
misunderstand. Old Brocko is never wrong.
> or what I affectionately think of as fallacy by
> "bong und blintz":
> "Goldmember: Would you like a shmoke und a pancake?
> Austin Powers: A what?
> Goldmember: A shmoke und a pancake. You know, a flapjack und a
> shigarette? No? Shigar und a waffle? No? Pipe und a crepe? No? Bong
> und a blintz? No? Well, then there ish no pleashing you.
> Austin Powers: That's not right... "[1]
Another of your stupid set texts you use over and over, ad nauseam.
Even in a post to which you respond to a statement that affirms that
you always use the same arguments in whatever discussion, you use one
of those boring texts you have used dozens of time before You just
proved my point.
> I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that
> illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear
> position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for
> reasons that are less than commendable.
Again, you reassert that the problem is on the reader side, not yours.
The more you write, the more you prove I am right in stating that you
never acknowledge that you may be in error.
So much for being a follower of the humble Jesus.
<snip>
> > You now everything there is to know
> > regarding all the topics you ever discussed on this board?
> Rather, I simply claim that as a sinner, without Christ I would've
> been lost eternally, but with Christ, I have a blessed and eternal
> life that is most wonderful. None of which is to my credit, instead
> it is all to God's credit for providing mercy and pardon that I am so
> thankful to accept.
You did not address my point.
<snip>
> I didn't miss the point, I simply note that what you dismiss
> condescendingly above as conversational noise represents an evaluation
> of my posts that I don't share.
Your unwillingness to share my point of view does not mean I am wrong.
If, in all your discussions, you always use the exact same arguments,
then, in effect, your posts do become conversational noise. Whatever
the question/debate/argument, we know what you will answer.
> > I was not just making fun of you, I had a message for you, but as
> > usual, you totally ignored it.
> Well, I just didn't agree with the point. Of course, that you found
> it edifying to specify it in a "making fun of you" form
Who said I found my tactic edifying?
Once again you are so certain of yourself that you ascribe feelings
and intentions to me, without any basis for doing so.
> also isn't endearing.
Exactly, I was not trying to be endering, I was trying to shock you.
> > You always come back to the same arguments over and over, WHATEVER the
> > topic. What are those arguments of yours? See in my Bla Bla text
> > above, they are all there, although I may have forgotten a few of
> > them.
> Consistency of position can have a virtue.
We have been over that before, and as usual, you did not admit that
you might have been wrong about this.
If you consistently use the exact same arguments in whatever
discussion, it is not a virtue, it is laziness and stubbornness.
No personal growth possible.
I find it puzzling that you would reject personal growth.
<snip>
> > You do not deserve respect. Some would say you deserve contempt.
> Tolerance for differing positions is noticeably lacking from such evaluations.
You are missing the point.
I am not making that statement because you hold a different position
(A topic I did not even touch upon in my whole post.).
I am making that statement because of your attitude and your refusal
to even consider that you may, at times, be wrong.
We know why you do not want to admit that you may be wrong:
Since you always use the same arguments and that those arguments
constitute the wall that protects your beliefs, if you were to admit
that even one of those argument is wrong, the removal of that brick
from your wall might be fatal to your wall. This does not mean you
could not rebuild it, you probably could, but you do not want to go
there.
So you go to great lengths to rehash the same old arguments over and
over and refuse to admit that any of them may be wrong. Whatever the
discussion, you always use the same arguments.
Just one simple example. Your two part statement concerning the
truthfulness of the bible. It has been refuted many times by many
people using many arguments that were logical. Yet, not only do you
refuse to reconsider your position, but on top of that, within the
same sub-thread, you bring that argument into play over and over and
your poor interlocutor has to refute it times and times again. This is
not conducive to knowledge growth on both sides and just reaffirms to
all that you are a monumental waste of time.
Go back, count how many times people have concluded that you were not
worth discussing with. This is a pattern that repeats itself time and
time gain.
You consistently get that reaction. This is indicative that there is
something wrong with your position and/or your attitude. But of
course, you refuse to admit that and blindly hide behind your wall.
> > I am
> > not sure. I will settle for indifference for now, but leaning towards
> > contempt.
> And you think this represents atheism in a positive light? I have to disagree.
Why would I think that?
Again, you try to ascribe intention to my post based on your own
personal evaluation, not on facts.
I am posting in my name, not in the name of atheism, whatever that may
be.
I am not trying to be positive, and neither am I trying to be
negative. I am trying to state things as I see them, and, for the time
being, I am trying to be civil.
The fact that I am an atheist is totally irrelevant to this whole
thing. I could be religious and hold the exact same views.
I am addressing your attitude, not your beliefs and opinions as such.
Of course, the fact I am an atheist does have significance for you, as
you plainly demonstrated above.
It seems you believe that there is no way in the world you can learn
something from an atheist, least of all, humility.
I guess your Jesus somehow forbids you to grow and learn, especially
from non-believers.
So, given that...
...you always rehash exactly the same arguments and do nothing else
...you refuse to admit that any of your arguments maybe wrong
...you will not learn anything or try to grow as a person
...you always end up being labeled as worthless
why do you stick around?
_________________________________________________
Theology is an attempt to explain a subject by men who do not
understand it. The intent is not to tell the truth but to satisfy the
questioner.
-- Elbert Hubbard
On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In nearly six months of reading your posts, a you know you do post a
> > heck of a lot, you have never admitted once you may have been wrong,
> It sounds like a contrived conclusion. I simply note that I respond
> as best as I can, if the responses are not sufficient, I try to
> clarify;
No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to
clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to
explain your position through different supporting references or with
the help of different literary aids. Repeating the same line over ad
nauseam does _not_ constitute an attempt at clarification.
> if the clarifications are deemed not sufficient, I
> frequently question the premises by which such evaluations are made.
No, deriding the premise is your first step, followed by an 'answer'
which does not address the question, (yet you insist that it does).
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> > You are always right.
>> I have not made such a claim.
> I did not state that you did.
Well, if you make the claim that I am always right, I'm flattered that you might so consider my responses; I'll admit I do take great care to do my best and to not make errors.
> I guess your belief in Jesus and you behaviour are totally unrelated.
> By never acknowledging that you may be wrong, you are in fact > maintaining that you are always right.
Or not. :)
> If you want to prove me wrong, just do some reseach and show me a few > posts, on this board, where you made statements similar to the ones I > wrote above.
No. :)
>> I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of >> internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken >> great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists >> reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply >> respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding >> of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of >> misunderstanding,
> See? Even now you will not admit that at times you may be wrong. > Again, it is the reader that either misunderstands or pretends to > misunderstand.
For instances where I believe that to be applicable, I do my best to make such a case.
>> or what I affectionately think of as fallacy by >> "bong und blintz":
>> "Goldmember: Would you like a shmoke und a pancake? >> Austin Powers: A what? >> Goldmember: A shmoke und a pancake. You know, a flapjack und a >> shigarette? No? Shigar und a waffle? No? Pipe und a crepe? No? Bong >> und a blintz? No? Well, then there ish no pleashing you. >> Austin Powers: That's not right... "[1]
> Another of your stupid set texts you use over and over, ad nauseam. > Even in a post to which you respond to a statement that affirms that > you always use the same arguments in whatever discussion, you use one > of those boring texts you have used dozens of time before You just > proved my point.
Not as readily as you might imagine. The clever and humourous lines indicate that what is often presented as a seemingly palatable dish in fact is not necessarily so (consider the sharply contrasting tastes associated with smoking and breakfast dishes); of course, the host, under the disingenuous guise of offering a wonderful hospitality, in fact simply presents options that guests are very likely to find not pleasant, but in a social situation and context that makes refusal of the hospitality seem to reflect poorly on the guest. And of course, the humour in the movie is that the false premise: "Well, then there ish no pleashing you." is simply designed to give the host a cover story by which to then order his minions to kill the "guests".
>> I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that >> illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear >> position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for >> reasons that are less than commendable.
> Again, you reassert that the problem is on the reader side, not yours.
It certainly is worth consideration, and I think I make the case well by explicitly identifying the nature of the premises that are under question.
> The more you write, the more you prove I am right in stating that you > never acknowledge that you may be in error.
Fallacy by Nietzsche:
"with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment."
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote: >> It sounds like a contrived conclusion. I simply note that I respond >> as best as I can, if the responses are not sufficient, I try to >> clarify;
> No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to > explain your position through different supporting references or with > the help of different literary aids.
Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to abuse the universal with such an analysis.
On Nov 5, 11:34 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You are always right.
> >> I have not made such a claim.
> > I did not state that you did.
> Well, if you make the claim that I am always right, I'm flattered that
See how dishonest you are?
I quite clearly stated that it was my belief that you are not always
right.
> you might so consider my responses; I'll admit I do take great care
> to do my best and to not make errors.
Ok, let's cut to the chase.
Brock, in your dealings with other people, here and elsewhere...
...have you ever been wrong?
...have you ever misunderstood a statement another person had made?
...have you ever learned anything from those people?
_______________________________________
For the fundamentalist who wants to believe every word of the Bible,
however, life is a house of cards, with each card a tenet of faith. If
you remove one card, the entire house collapses.
-- Morris Sullivan
was authored by rappoccio himself, and not George Carlin.
> ...have you ever misunderstood a statement another person had made?
Yes.
> ...have you ever learned anything from those people?
Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am for the exchanges I get to participate in.
Yes, I did state it. But, please, you are more intelligent than your
reply suggests.
You now perfectly well - it was clear from the context you cited -
that it was perfectly obvious I did not believe it was true.
I was making the statement from your own perpepective.
> >> you might so consider my responses; I'll admit I do take great care
> >> to do my best and to not make errors.
> > Ok, let's cut to the chase.
> > Brock, in your dealings with other people, here and elsewhere...
> > ...have you ever been wrong?
> was authored by rappoccio himself, and not George Carlin.
So, why did you not acknowledge it?
You were wrong only once in six months?
> > ...have you ever misunderstood a statement another person had made?
> Yes.
Why is it that this never happens in this group?
I do not remeber you acknowledging this.
But, to be fair, I have not read every single post you sent.
> > ...have you ever learned anything from those people?
> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
So, the answer is "no".
To be grateful for being a participant in exchanges is not synonymous
with learning something.
But the real question is this:
Do you think it might be possible you are wrong in some of the views
you hold regarding any aspect of your religion?
If so, what are they?
If not, how is this possible?
_________________________________________
For the fundamentalist who wants to believe every word of the Bible,
however, life is a house of cards, with each card a tenet of faith. If
you remove one card, the entire house collapses.
-- Morris Sullivan
On Nov 5, 11:37 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> > No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to
> > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to
> > explain your position through different supporting references or with
> > the help of different literary aids.
> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common
> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the
> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large
> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to
> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
DO you mean to say that you don't feel it's responsible for you to
extrapolate on your positions for fear of abusing the forum??
> Yes, I did state it. But, please, you are more intelligent than your > reply suggests. > You now perfectly well - it was clear from the context you cited - > that it was perfectly obvious I did not believe it was true. > I was making the statement from your own perpepective.
Ah, putting words into my mouth, as it were ... So its clear that:
> See how dishonest you are?
.perhaps applies more to you than I on this regard.
>> was authored by rappoccio himself, and not George Carlin.
> So, why did you not acknowledge it? > You were wrong only once in six months?
I'm just happy to provide a counter-example to any claim that "I believe I'm always right". :)
>> > ...have you ever learned anything from those people?
>> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> So, the answer is "no".
No, the answer is:
>> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am >> for the exchanges I get to participate in. > To be grateful for being a participant in exchanges is not synonymous > with learning something.
But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and intense discussions of their beliefs.
> But the real question is this:
> Do you think it might be possible you are wrong in some of the views > you hold regarding any aspect of your religion?
Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort, understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and God.
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Ah, putting words into my mouth, as it were ... So its clear that:
> > See how dishonest you are?
> .perhaps applies more to you than I on this regard.
You can say that if you want, although I maintain it was pretty clear
that I was not stating my belief but describing the perception we have
of the attitude you have which we get from reading your posts.
If, in your mind, that makes me dishonest, so be it.
Rather, I maybe at fault for not expressing that point more clearly.
<snip>
> > So, why did you not acknowledge it?
> > You were wrong only once in six months?
> I'm just happy to provide a counter-example to any claim that "I
> believe I'm always right". :)
But if I had not pushed you in this thread, you would not have
admitted it, which is the point I am making. You never admit you might
be wrong or misunderstand other people. By never admitting it, you
give us the impression that you think you never err.
> >> > ...have you ever learned anything from those people?
> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> > So, the answer is "no".
> No, the answer is:
> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
See?
Repeating the answer is not an answer.
Clearly I stated I did not believe you had appropriately answered and
gave you a reason.
Instead of admitting you were wrong or made a mistake or had not been
clear enough, you plainly repeat the exact same answer.
I had asked what you had learned and you tell me you are grateful.
Being grateful is not something you have learned, it is just a state
of mind.
> > To be grateful for being a participant in exchanges is not synonymous
> > with learning something.
> But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful
> for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and
> intense discussions of their beliefs.
Repeating it a third time is insulting.
You are clearly not making an effort.
> > But the real question is this:
> > Do you think it might be possible you are wrong in some of the views
> > you hold regarding any aspect of your religion?
> Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort,
> understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And
> God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my
> personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and
> God.
So, are you stating that because your god acts through you, you are
never wrong?
________________________________________________
For the fundamentalist who wants to believe every word of the Bible,
however, life is a house of cards, with each card a tenet of faith. If
you remove one card, the entire house collapses.
-- Morris Sullivan
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:37 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>> > No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to >> > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to >> > explain your position through different supporting references or with >> > the help of different literary aids.
>> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common >> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the >> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large >> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to >> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
> DO you mean to say that you don't feel it's responsible for you to > extrapolate on your positions for fear of abusing the forum??
No, I meant to say:
Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to abuse the universal with such an analysis.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Ah, putting words into my mouth, as it were ... So its clear that:
>> > See how dishonest you are?
>> .perhaps applies more to you than I on this regard.
> You can say that if you want,
I'm pretty sure I did.
> although I maintain it was pretty clear > that I was not stating my belief but describing the perception we have > of the attitude you have which we get from reading your posts.
Thankfully, I only have to respond to and defend my positions, and not your perception of my attitude.
>> I'm just happy to provide a counter-example to any claim that "I >> believe I'm always right". :)
> But if I had not pushed you in this thread, you would not have > admitted it, which is the point I am making. You never admit you might > be wrong or misunderstand other people.
I just did admit it above. So your charge is not accurate.
> By never admitting it, you > give us the impression that you think you never err.
Perhaps you are listening too closely to your impression and not closely enough to the text of my responses.
>> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
>> > So, the answer is "no".
>> No, the answer is:
>> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> See? > Repeating the answer is not an answer.
Rather, it contrasts with the incorrect conclusion you articulated, and stands as an appropriate answer.
> Clearly I stated I did not believe you had appropriately answered and > gave you a reason. > Instead of admitting you were wrong or made a mistake or had not been > clear enough, you plainly repeat the exact same answer.
Consistency of position is a virtue I strive for. And given some of the limitations of this style of interaction, I'm happy to take additional care to make the positions as clear as I can for those who would have it.
>> But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful >> for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and >> intense discussions of their beliefs.
> Repeating it a third time is insulting.
No insult, just my gratitude for having the forum and frank exchanges with members.
> You are clearly not making an effort.
Or simply are frequently disagreeing with the premises of the accusations.
>> Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort, >> understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And >> God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my >> personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and >> God.
> So, are you stating that because your god acts through you, you are > never wrong?
No, I stated:
"So I see my personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and God."
As an academic point, the human authority behind my beliefs about the nature of God and salvation is not in itself an objective basis with which to establish them. A virtue of this position is in the clear way it deals with existential and humanistic first principles. If its true that I personally testify that I believe the Bible is objectively true, it is also the case that such a testimony is not the authoritative basis for its objective nature.
So with respect to my testimony:
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
I'll humorously note: "though I say so, it ain't true simply 'cuz I say so".
On Nov 7, 4:02 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> > DO you mean to say that you don't feel it's responsible for you to
> > extrapolate on your positions for fear of abusing the forum??
> No, I meant to say:
> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common
> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the
> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large
> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to
> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
which brings us back to:
"> > No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to
> > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to
> > explain your position through different supporting references or with
> > the help of different literary aids. "
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Ah, putting words into my mouth, as it were ... So its clear that:
> >> > See how dishonest you are?
> >> .perhaps applies more to you than I on this regard.
> > You can say that if you want,
> I'm pretty sure I did.
> > although I maintain it was pretty clear
> > that I was not stating my belief but describing the perception we have
> > of the attitude you have which we get from reading your posts.
> Thankfully, I only have to respond to and defend my positions, and not
> your perception of my attitude.
> >> I'm just happy to provide a counter-example to any claim that "I
> >> believe I'm always right". :)
> > But if I had not pushed you in this thread, you would not have
> > admitted it, which is the point I am making. You never admit you might
> > be wrong or misunderstand other people.
> I just did admit it above. So your charge is not accurate.
> > By never admitting it, you
> > give us the impression that you think you never err.
> Perhaps you are listening too closely to your impression and not
> closely enough to the text of my responses.
> >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> >> > So, the answer is "no".
> >> No, the answer is:
> >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> > See?
> > Repeating the answer is not an answer.
> Rather, it contrasts with the incorrect conclusion you articulated,
> and stands as an appropriate answer.
> > Clearly I stated I did not believe you had appropriately answered and
> > gave you a reason.
> > Instead of admitting you were wrong or made a mistake or had not been
> > clear enough, you plainly repeat the exact same answer.
> Consistency of position is a virtue I strive for. And given some of
> the limitations of this style of interaction, I'm happy to take
> additional care to make the positions as clear as I can for those who
> would have it.
> >> But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful
> >> for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and
> >> intense discussions of their beliefs.
> > Repeating it a third time is insulting.
> No insult, just my gratitude for having the forum and frank exchanges
> with members.
> > You are clearly not making an effort.
> Or simply are frequently disagreeing with the premises of the accusations.
> >> Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort,
> >> understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And
> >> God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my
> >> personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and
> >> God.
> > So, are you stating that because your god acts through you, you are
> > never wrong?
> No, I stated:
> "So I see my personal finitude as an academic point with respect to
> salvation and God."
> As an academic point, the human authority behind my beliefs about the
> nature of God and salvation is not in itself an objective basis with
> which to establish them. A virtue of this position is in the clear
> way it deals with existential and humanistic first principles. If its
> true that I personally testify that I believe the Bible is objectively
> true, it is also the case that such a testimony is not the
> authoritative basis for its objective nature.
> So with respect to my testimony:
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> I'll humorously note: "though I say so, it ain't true simply 'cuz I say so".
> Regards,
> Brock
Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #5:
"Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating"
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:37 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> >> > No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to
> >> > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to
> >> > explain your position through different supporting references or with
> >> > the help of different literary aids.
> >> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common
> >> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the
> >> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large
> >> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to
> >> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
> > DO you mean to say that you don't feel it's responsible for you to
> > extrapolate on your positions for fear of abusing the forum??
> No, I meant to say:
> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common
> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the
> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large
> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to
> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
> Regards,
> Brock
Violation of Code of Christian Conduct #2:
"Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him."
> >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> >> > So, the answer is "no".
> >> No, the answer is:
> >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several occasions
> >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I am
> >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> > See?
> > Repeating the answer is not an answer.
> Rather, it contrasts with the incorrect conclusion you articulated,
> and stands as an appropriate answer.
I did not make any conclusion.
I asked a question. Your answer is inappropriate. Repeat it all you
want, you are wrong because it is still inappropriate.
When someone asks: "What did you learn?"
And the answer is "I am grateful for the opportunity to be here."
This is not the answer that was expected. You can twist it to say "I
learnt that I am grateful..."
But still, clearly, this is not what was asked.
If that had been the case, instead of stupidly repeating your answer,
you could have explained that this gratefulness is something you
learnt. I would have known that you did not understand my question and
would have rephrased it.
So, just because you are being difficult and will not admit you are
wrong, let me ask again:
Brock, in your dealings with other people, here and elsewhere...
...have you ever learnt any facts from those people besides finding
out that you were grateful for an opportunity to have exchanges?
<snip>
> >> But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful
> >> for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and
> >> intense discussions of their beliefs.
> > Repeating it a third time is insulting.
> No insult, just my gratitude for having the forum and frank exchanges
> with members.
A fourth time, you are really insulting.
> > You are clearly not making an effort.
> Or simply are frequently disagreeing with the premises of the accusations.
One more time, old Brocko is not wrong, oh no, it is again the other
guy who presented wrong premises.
> >> Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort,
> >> understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And
> >> God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my
> >> personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and
> >> God.
> > So, are you stating that because your god acts through you, you are
> > never wrong?
> No, I stated:
> "So I see my personal finitude as an academic point with respect to
> salvation and God."
Which, again, is not an answer.
I had asked:
"
Do you think it might be possible you are wrong in some of the views
you hold regarding any aspect of your religion?
If so, what are they?
If not, how is this possible?
"
Telling me about personal finitude and Salvation is not an answer.
> As an academic point, the human authority behind my beliefs about the
> nature of God and salvation is not in itself an objective basis with
> which to establish them. A virtue of this position is in the clear
> way it deals with existential and humanistic first principles. If its
> true that I personally testify that I believe the Bible is objectively
> true, it is also the case that such a testimony is not the
> authoritative basis for its objective nature.
> So with respect to my testimony:
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
One more, time you post this crap for the gazillionth time.
You are proving my previous point that whatever the discussion, you
have to use the same argumetns over and over.
We are talking about the fact that you never admit that you are wrong,
you have to tell me that the bible is objectively true?
You are hopeless.
> I'll humorously note: "though I say so, it ain't true simply 'cuz I say so".
In your case it ain't funny because this is exactly what you do.
________________________________________
Where the cross has been planted only superstitions have grown.
-- Lemuel K Washburn
> On Nov 7, 1:27 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >> Ah, putting words into my mouth, as it were ... So its clear that:
> > >> > See how dishonest you are?
> > >> .perhaps applies more to you than I on this regard.
> > > You can say that if you want,
> > I'm pretty sure I did.
> > > although I maintain it was pretty clear > > > that I was not stating my belief but describing the perception we have > > > of the attitude you have which we get from reading your posts.
> > Thankfully, I only have to respond to and defend my positions, and not > > your perception of my attitude.
> > >> I'm just happy to provide a counter-example to any claim that "I > > >> believe I'm always right". :)
> > > But if I had not pushed you in this thread, you would not have > > > admitted it, which is the point I am making. You never admit you might > > > be wrong or misunderstand other people.
> > I just did admit it above. So your charge is not accurate.
> > > By never admitting it, you > > > give us the impression that you think you never err.
> > Perhaps you are listening too closely to your impression and not > > closely enough to the text of my responses.
> > >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several > occasions > > >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I > am > > >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> > >> > So, the answer is "no".
> > >> No, the answer is:
> > >> >> Invective, cursing and vitriol aside, I've stated on several > occasions > > >> >> how grateful I am to participate in this forum, and how thankful I > am > > >> >> for the exchanges I get to participate in.
> > > See? > > > Repeating the answer is not an answer.
> > Rather, it contrasts with the incorrect conclusion you articulated, > > and stands as an appropriate answer.
> > > Clearly I stated I did not believe you had appropriately answered and > > > gave you a reason. > > > Instead of admitting you were wrong or made a mistake or had not been > > > clear enough, you plainly repeat the exact same answer.
> > Consistency of position is a virtue I strive for. And given some of > > the limitations of this style of interaction, I'm happy to take > > additional care to make the positions as clear as I can for those who > > would have it.
> > >> But, cursing, invective and vitriol not-withstanding, I am grateful > > >> for the exchanges, and thankful to engage with folks in frank and > > >> intense discussions of their beliefs.
> > > Repeating it a third time is insulting.
> > No insult, just my gratitude for having the forum and frank exchanges > > with members.
> > > You are clearly not making an effort.
> > Or simply are frequently disagreeing with the premises of the > accusations.
> > >> Simply put, salvation is not a matter of my personal effort, > > >> understanding or actions, but rather, is the direct work of God. And > > >> God is not limited by my human finitude or sinfulness. So I see my > > >> personal finitude as an academic point with respect to salvation and > > >> God.
> > > So, are you stating that because your god acts through you, you are > > > never wrong?
> > No, I stated:
> > "So I see my personal finitude as an academic point with respect to > > salvation and God."
> > As an academic point, the human authority behind my beliefs about the > > nature of God and salvation is not in itself an objective basis with > > which to establish them. A virtue of this position is in the clear > > way it deals with existential and humanistic first principles. If its > > true that I personally testify that I believe the Bible is objectively > > true, it is also the case that such a testimony is not the > > authoritative basis for its objective nature.
> > So with respect to my testimony:
> > 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true > > 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > I'll humorously note: "though I say so, it ain't true simply 'cuz I say > so".
> > Regards,
> > Brock
> Violation of Christian Code of Conduct #5:
> "Never admitting when you are wrong > Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages. > It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the > Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. > If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and > courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes > mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an > error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being > wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you > never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince > anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the > respect of the one with whom you are debating"
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, Justice, US Supreme Court Justice
On Nov 7, 1:27 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an academic point, the human authority behind my beliefs about the
> nature of God and salvation is not in itself an objective basis with
> which to establish them. A virtue of this position is in the clear
> way it deals with existential and humanistic first principles.
"god" is an existential & humanistic concept, (super-being father
figure), that has no apparent basis in objective reality. so, the
alleged "virtue" of a position that posits such is just a pretension.
an omnisient eternal being is impossible because infinity is
immeasurable, even for god. so this super-being father figure couldn't
possibly exist in the first place & if you make what is inherently
impossible part of any first principles, then your epistemology is
based on the nonsensical.
can't we as human beings do better than that? yes we can.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 4:02 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>> > DO you mean to say that you don't feel it's responsible for you to >> > extrapolate on your positions for fear of abusing the forum??
>> No, I meant to say:
>> Given the multiple sources I frequently reference, the common >> philosophical positions with which I compare and contrast, and the >> patience with which I engage in discussions, responding to a large >> majority of posts directed to me, I don't believe it is responsible to >> abuse the universal with such an analysis.
> which brings us back to:
> "> > No, you just repeat yourself. You have never made an attempt to >> > clarify any 'position' you state. To clarify would be to attempt to >> > explain your position through different supporting references or with >> > the help of different literary aids. "
> Q.E.D.
Which, as I noted earlier, is a fallacy by "bong und blintz".
I take a lot of consideration to the limitations of the medium of internet forums in communications of this type. Frankly, I have taken great care to be as clear as I can in my positions. If many atheists reject such positions and accuse me for a misunderstanding, I simply respond by noting that often the problem is not the misunderstanding of a position, its rather the rejection of the position under guise of misunderstanding, or what I affectionately think of as fallacy by "bong und blintz":
"Goldmember: Would you like a shmoke und a pancake? Austin Powers: A what? Goldmember: A shmoke und a pancake. You know, a flapjack und a shigarette? No? Shigar und a waffle? No? Pipe und a crepe? No? Bong und a blintz? No? Well, then there ish no pleashing you. Austin Powers: That's not right... "
I simply note that the above dialog presents a humorous exchange that illustrates productive discourse is a two way street, and that a clear position of mine may not always be recognized as such by the OP for reasons that are less than commendable.
|
