Belief and Knowledge

[Mister Agenda]

I think we're saying the same thing MA. Likewise I find the Christian position severely misrepresented. The theist position, well I ascribe to that too. Haywood, as I see him posting now and recently, has a perfect understanding of what constitutes atheism. That's my point. The objections are nit picking. You're not allowing him to generalise where generalisations are warranted. I find that a dishonest diversionary tactic.

It's neither dishonest nor diversionary. What's dishonest and diversionary is generalizing about the people you're talking to inaccurately, despite their objections. It's not like we're not going to notice. It's not like he can't be more specific and address the people who actually fit his preconceptions. It's not like those of us who don't fit that description are going to accept it, or even those who do if we know it isn't accurate.

I hope you two wouldn't be this clueless if you went on a forum inhabited primarily by a racial minority that you spent so much time arguing with them about what must be true of them if they're members of that minority.

It's not our fault that Heywood won't ask what terms would be acceptable for the people he means to be talking about. If I found an atheist on a Quaker site talking about them like they were Catholics, I'd set her straight. He could start with his definition, ask what to call it, and move forward. But he's right where he wants to stay.

---

Not me personally, but I once had a friend who was an atheist and believed in reincarnation.

I knew one who bought into astrology. And don't get me started on the conspiracy wingnuts. Or Raellians.