(April 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm)whateverist Wrote: So the emotion of hate and intellectual dishonesty (revealed by its containing conclusions which differ from my own) thoroughly justify aggression. What would it take to justify tolerance of a differing opinion in matters where conclusive evidence is lacking?
Atheism is no insurance against faulty logic. In fact reasoning which starts with atheism as axiomatic suffers from the same narrowness as fundamentalist theism.
I have never once made the claim or conclusion that my ire and emotive processes lead to logical outcomes, quite the opposite in the past, in fact. I have readily acknowledged that I am a creature of emotional outbursts that may not lead to rational conclusions, and that I sometimes am biased. I try to overcome these shortcomings, but they are faults to my personality that are deeply engrained and difficult to pacify.
Love: I can at least do away with my statement about intellectual dishonesty, you have at least managed to display that if nothing else you are following a self-contained train of thought that if nothing else at least answers to itself to some extent. The others...ehhhh I'm still not entirely convinced of, though I'm at least going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
