Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Pippy]

Hey,

Arcanus, another absolutely fantastic read. I quite appreciate your presence here, although I may be alone in my feelings. I find the things you write to be above my level of writing, but within my level of reading. I am happy to see you expound things I agree with using such clarity and composure. It only makes me wish I could have said it so well myself. You have presented a very, very strong argument for, as you say, Dawkins 'embarrassing' theological works. That is closer to the truth than my calling him an asshole. I do agree that he writes well, but the metaphysical books are just terrible, more so that they are touted as some atheistic 'bible'. You also made a good point about the 'Weasel test', that it is solid but does not go very far at all. That it isn't flawed, but that it is used sometimes to extrapolate far more from it than I think can be. That was what I was trying to say, but met some difficulty. If I could also commend your patience and control. It is hard with all the petty name-calling, but we do what we must. Again, thank you.
Kyu wrote:

You are disingenuous ... do you read base scientific papers on everything you have an opinion on? No ... I thought not! Is your view on some of those thing meaningless? Probably not.
That I have not read the original articles on some theological issues DOES NOT make my POV on some of these things any less valid especially considering I have dealt with them ad nauseum by proxy.

I think this is a weird little double standard. I agree with the first sentence completely, and if you replaced the word 'scientific' with 'theological' it would hold true for the second statement. That you have not read the articles on theology does not make you POV meaningless, but certainly does make it (at least a little) less valid. You have said the same to me about how I don't appreciate and keep up with the 'scientific journals' you love... To assume the rest of the world is the same as the little piece you have seen, to know all theists because of the few you have known is... ... what's the word... Disingenuous? And, on a final note, what is with the self-censoring?

And finally, Adrian. Thank you, for the third time in a row, for posting the wiki I assure you I have read (at the very least, 3 times now). I cannot continue such a discussion, whether or not anyone 'will think any less of me'. You can all think what you want, I will not base my decisions on that. I was taken aback by the brevity and rudeness of your first post. I have been treated to some very un-compelling argument, and immature behavior by you for a little while, and so I decided this was the breaking point. I told you as such, and you chose to act ruder and make a existent, but fickle rebut. I posed the weasel question as a tiny open thought for us to share what we think. Now I do not want to discuss this, or likely much else with you any longer, as I feel it is a waste of time (for both of us).

Now either be a good sport and write an actual post that responds, or go away. People who do not discuss things and simply lie to try and get out of an argument are not welcome on what is (after all) a discussion forum.

I would point out that this is circular. I posted some open ended questions and my personal thoughts, and you replied with disdain and disrespect. I called you on your behavior (since at that time you weren't arguing the point). You then slightly took part in the discussion, but maintained you self-superior and unimpressive attitude to the point of taking the wind out of what little conversation did exist in your second and third post. Then you accuse me, in your most recent post, of not 'discussing' of whining and 'playing the victim'. You need to take responsibility for the way people react to your provocation. You tout your 'pure argument' but every post you have posted included the wiki that I assured you in the first place I had read. In fact, your last post was the prior one copied and pasted. That is 'pure' argument? I know you will champion yourself as victor of this strange battle, since I resorted only to insults and personal attacks. You won't even see the reality of your own behavior, and how I only responded with similar (but still more polite and respectful). You can act however you like, but when I mirror you own actions, try not to loudly call me on it, it is (in the end) arguing against yourself. That is why I do it, it is a trick.

In short. You started it. Please, don't accuse me of lying, unless you can show solid proof. I take great, great offense to the insulation that I would tell untruths on purpose. I have very high moral standards you know... If you act more intelligent, and with more respect, I will be happy to return the favor. As far as this discussion, and the train wreck we are forcing upon the others who inhabit this site, I consider it fully closed. Thank you.

<sigh> I don't like to fight. I apologize beforehand for bothering every one else. And Adrian, let's agree to disagree and not make it so personal? We should try. Myself as well.

Thank you all, and take care,
-Pip