(November 21, 2013 at 11:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Well, I think I've been more than reasonable, particularly with you, and stated my case with great care multiple times. Just because you are not convinced (and reasonable people can disagree) you feel compelled to painting me in a negative light, i.e. a liar. Even if he is wrong, someone that speaks with conviction about what he honestly believes is not a liar.
That's just it, though: you can't have a case for stating someone's motivations are different from their stated ones without knowing the person and gauging their actions. I even took it for an attribution error the first time, showed you that the reversed reasoning makes logical sense when considered from the atheist's point of view, but you wouldn't even acknowledge the point. Being mistaken is one thing, but refusing to let go of a claim when presented with an obviously more viable pathway... what else could that be?
And I've seen people refute you on the claim in your signature, but it never stops you making it. It's just infuriating in general, anyway: every time we engage with theists, eventually it comes to the point where they take it as a given that they can speak for us. Could you imagine taking on conversation after conversation where, after stating your position, your opponent just shakes his head and goes, "no, that's not true. You really believe this because..."
There's just no way to do that that isn't hostile and a little dishonest, right from the outset.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!