[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

dmb:

You'll note my terminology please:

John said:
>  From my perspective, Mark has been arguing against a dogmatic
> interpretation by an "old guard" squelching all debate or interpretation.
>  Against the very common formulation of blindly worshipping the sq
> interpreters of the past. That's his main theme, that I've seen.  And one in
> which I heartily concur.
>
>
John:

"from my perspective".  How can such a statement be wrong?  That's like
arguing "no you don't" when I say "it seems to me".  How can you judge my
perspective dave?  Only if you share it, and you certainly don't.


>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I don't believe that for one second. I don't think you can you cite any
> examples of this debate squelching or blind worship.



John:

Please pay attention to the actual meanings of words, dave.  It's all we
have to go on, after all, and if you insist upon always construing so
unfairly, we'll never get anywhere.  (big surprise)

I said, from my perspective, this is what Mark has been arguing.  I didn't
say he was correct in his aspersion.  I simply stated that this, from my
perspective, was his point.

However, I can certainly cite many examples of debate squelching on your
part.  From my perspective, I've attempted to elicit debate with you over
and over and you've almost always squelched it with "no thanks" or "this
isn't fun" or various other evasions of my particular passion - the
interaction and cross-influences of Royce and James.

And as far as "blind worship", I can easily point to that - just look in any
mirror dave, carnival or straight,  and you'll see your object of blind
worship looking back.



> These accusations are so vague that they could be thrown at anyone who has
> an opinion or point of view about anything.
>

Well I'm glad to sharpen up the vagueness for you.  Notice that I just did.



> Isn't it true that debate squelchers and blind worshipers are those who
> maintain their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary?


Yes.



> And isn't that exactly what you're doing when you make these accusations?


No.


> If I'm presenting the textual evidence and you are ignoring it or using it
> selectively in order to maintain your position, then surely you are being
> the dogmatist.


Using textual evidence selectively, is normal.  We all do it.  We can't post
every single text on a subject.  Quoting selectively is of two species -
there's selection based upon Quality, and then there's selection based upon
social urges of dominance, which is what you usually get when you enter the
academic arena, so I can see how it might come to be the dominant mode of
one's life, if one chooses that arena.  So I cut you some slack.



> And these accusations are just a way of discrediting the use of evidence as
> some kind of closed-minded and oppressive tactic. That, sir, is completely
> ridiculous and preposterous, by which I mean it is ass-backwards and it's
> mere ridicule.


I have a lot of evidence that you tend to ignore evidence or textual
interpretation that doesn't fit into your pre-defined views, like  asserting
that your construal of "anti-theistic in this regard" means what YOU want it
to mean, and that anybody who contradicts your construal is just ignoring
the evidence.



> Frankly, I think this complaint is so stupid and so childish that it
> doesn't really deserve a response, but there it is anyway.
>

Another gem of intellectuality from the mind of dmb.

Just remember, when it comes to being stupid and childish, you started it.

John sticking out his tongue and thumbing his nose.