In Reply to: I am neutral posted by Swede on September 04, 2006 at 05:32:56:
Swede:
I understand that you are under a posting protection that I am not, so I will proceed VERY CAREFULLY; here.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, very strong though it is, that you actually ARE joking.
If you are following these threads, the repetitious nature of some of the “theists vs. anti-theists” posting wars are becoming so tiresome to one or more “Coordinators” (and perhaps to WC himself?) that there is a consideration of shutting the board down.
So, for your joke, I say: “Ha, ha—very funny”.
You said (I’m cutting and pasting, here): “You understand well that you have precisely insulted Moonshiner through to say that he is an dishonest type????”
Wow. Four question marks.
Oh--moonshiners not a guy. She's a she.
No. I don’t understand that. I was recounting my own experiences. For me, I saw nothing as actual demonstrable evidence in science, or the philosophy of logic, within the system of analytical philosophy, that actually proved rationalist/materialist/atheism/evolution.
So, at that point, years ago, and having nothing to do whatsoever with moonshiner as a TF exer with all the resultant problems with what other people believe, I reconsidered my own belief in atheism; the dogmatic kind (the kind with no proof).
I meant the belief system, all by itself. It’s weaknesses were so glaring, that, no, I could not pretend that there even was a “neutral” position even available on the subject.
I eventually saw it as religious as any other religion I ended up rejecting over the years, including TF’s.
When I read moonshiner’s comment: “An agnostic is someone who does not believe or disbelieve there is a God or higher power, but instead waits for proof, as opposed to evidence, to settle the question”, I could make no sense of it, whatsoever, since the difference between the words “proof” and “evidence” are hardly clear.
I mean I cannot see how it would be clear to ANYONE. Perhaps she assigns a private meaning to the synonyms which is unknown to the rest of us; Australians and USA-type Americans both speak English; after all.
Swede, I have found, reading in some of the magazines and journals I have seen moonshiner as well as susie quote from, that atheists have a certain way of expressing themselves. They very rigidly do NOT step out from behind that SPECIFIC phraseology, BECAUSE the “language” used is very specifically slanted towards a presumption that everything they say is absolutely true.
So, I was talking about the LANGUAGE of the dogmatic atheist, and MY reaction to it.
So, that is SPECIFICALLY WHY I stated: “Oh, yeah--I also quit pretending in the existence of something quite significant; the actual existence of scientific facts purporting to make anti-theism more than a johny-come-lately religious invention popular in the political past of Europe. I owned up to the non-existence of substantial reasons for assuming that everybody in the world should automatically default to MY beliefs, as I found that religious and offensive to me personally as an ex-member of an admittedly sub-Christian cult.”
Swede, to me it is logically and philosophically absurd to take the position that if something IS true, that someone else’s OPINION can render it NOT TRUE.
To me, that is like saying that “There are absolutely no absolutes, and I am absolutely sure about that stated uncertainty”. You see, that is a meaningless statement, regardless of ANYONE’S opinion of it.
I do think that there is another kind of atheist besides “dogmatic”; though.
That’s a different story altogether; though (perhaps some other time, if I fell I can trust your sincerety; which I don't, yet).
Do be careful with your answer; though, as you may begin to find the Coordinators (not WC; he already does) beginning to hold you to the same rules of polite behavior as they do me. I‘m not sure they’ll watch you like a hawk; they do me, though. We shall see.
Humorously,
OT2
PS Tell me the truth, before God; Swede (first tell me YOUR belief system, though—That is only fair), when you asked:
“By the way, is from another post by why is your life difficult now? Are you having some sickness? “---Are you actually interested, or is that just another mockery of me, which you feel you can get away with? Tell me your REAL reasons for asking; OK?
Then, I MIGHT want to bother answering you. If I cannot personally sense a sincerity, this time, while I am told to behave, and you are NOT, believe me, all of our conversations are over.
Does that translate easily enough for you?
????