||If discussing this topic with me has been so distressing to you, I'm surprised you at how often you have returned to continue the proceedings!
I would be completely happy to agree to disagree with you on the topic of atheism v. theism. However you have done very little to actually discuss atheism v. theism. Instead, you have repeatedly posted on how I have:
- Put words in your mouth,
- Changed the subject, Not answered your questions, Assumed things about your character or your ability to read and comprehend things,
- Turned the argument around onto you,
- Putting words in my mouth,
- Changing the subject, Not answering my questions, Assuming things about my character or my ability to read and comprehend things,
- Turning the argument around onto me,
Which is fine, as long as you realize what you are doing. It appears that you enjoy to drag out pointless arguments by an attempted debate of semantics, and that's cool if it's your thing. However, I'd just like to point out once again that people who have difficulty in debating a topic without becoming emotional, defensive or aggressive is evidence that they have very little knowledge of the subject material or on the subject of debate. By making personal attacks and assumptions you have proven that you have difficulty debating effectively. What is the point of debating a topic with a person who has no interest in hearing the other side, let alone the ability to refrain from ad hominem and emotive attacks? What, indeed.
I could easily spend all day telling you how you "appear" to be. I could whip up all kinds of illogical and bottomless conclusions, based only on this half-witted discussion, on your character. I could assume. But that would be wrong and fallacious. I have not once assumed about your character or your personal beliefs or opinions, because I do not know you personally--I only know of you what you have shown here, and that is not enough to make a conclusion of your character.
Why, then, do you assume my character? I sincerely apologize if I ever gave you the impression that I feel "that religious people, once enlightened, will become atheists, because it is more sensible". "Sensible" is subjective, as can be deduced from reading this long and tiresome thread of posts. Yet, again, when you assume about my character it only shows me that you are unable to discuss this matter maturely, which is a waste of time.
I will also apologize if I gave you the impression that I felt you were unintelligent in regard to the information I provided on atheism. As you appeared to want to continue this discussion while making uninformed comments, I felt that it was only proper to point out to you that, if you want to continue this subject, would you please take a moment to speak as if you have acquainted yourself with the topic. Yet, as you continued to feel that discussing my character was more important than the topic, I continued to take that opportunity. If you disagreed with the material, why, then, didn't you feel that your opinions on the matter would have been useful to the conversation rather than leaving me to hang while you continued making defamatory statements? Just curious.
tkatchev also assumes the character of others before respecting the opinions of others as being different (i.e. "As for your hate of God...", after I explained several times that I have no hate for any gods, as I have no belief in any gods, which would then make it impossible for me to hate any gods, etc.), so would then not be the best source to use when backing up your statements.
Your use of the term "parochialism" is interesting, by the way.
"Some guy's" definitions of strong and weak atheism are the definitions for strong and weak atheism. There is no such thing as "positivistic" and "normative" atheism, although I'm sure that you could individually reason in that manner. That statement was, in my opinion, quite dismissive and I'm curious as to why you would display such a "who cares" attitude about something you've put so much energy into debating against? Once again, just curious.
Discussion and debate can accomplish quite a lot as long as both sides refrain from this sort of quibbling. However, both sides have to be willing to do their part. I'm sorry if you felt I was being sarcastic or patronizing in my comments to you, as I was honestly, and respectfully, attempting to discuss this topic with you. I felt everything was going pretty well until: this (which honestly hurt my feelings, as I thought we were having a nice conversation).
Anyway, Nathan, you are obviously going to make your opinions of me based on whatever evidence you need, and I'm frankly tired of trying to defend my character, so there you are. You win. I'm too old for this, or whatever. I'm sure you are probably a very nice person despite my opinions of you after this conversation, so I'll keep the jury out so to speak.
Just do me--nay, yourself a favor? Try and keep from getting so defensive about everything. Dear bob, if I thought that all religious people were dumb, misguided, deluded, unenlightened, ignorant, etc., I would have very few people in which I respected personally. Religion, as you say, has very little to do with it. Perhaps your relations at the Women's Centre might be greatly improved if you just let...things...go.
Just a suggestion... I'm sure you have your own. ;)
Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks