Quote from stu:
My theist remark came toward the end of the exchange and I stand by it. It appears to me the only reason why your responses changed from measured and reasonable to childish and belligerent.
You find it "freaky, man." that atheists don't agree with me. Do you find it "freaky, man." that people don't generally agree?
You see red on this, so accuse me of seeing red. That is the jem/ZZzz method of argument, not usually yours.
Stu, stu, stu. How can I possibly see red over you're disagreement when in fact I actually am agreeing with a bunch or erudite atheists who detailed why they hold the precise position I do on the word's use? Do you see my friend? You keep thinking it has something to do with theism rather than conservative word usage like the atheists I agree with. That's bizarre posturing on your part.
I'm simply stuck on proper and commonly accepted word usage. And when I find that I don't have the proper word for something, using conservative word usage principles, I'll add a qualifying adjective or adverb in front or behind a word to expand on meaning. But I won't redefine a word to suit my agenda or worldview. At least not on purpose.
And guess what? Most people take this route. Whether they are atheist, theist, short, fat, hetero, homo, Republican, democratic, stoic, or emotional.
A one line reference or a link would be example, not the largest paragraph in your post subjectively revisiting the points.
It doesn't appear you are over it. It appears that you are very angry about it, for some reason.
Well now Stu, you know that most people won't click on links and read through an entire essay. And so if interest was piqued, at least they would have a proper line of reason instead of a mere sound bite. Notice how one poster just took a small blurb from the post and gathered an incorrect understanding of the context? Just proof that people generally do not wish to read through long essays.
Anger? Jeez Stu. Why would I be angry? Think about it. I embrace a majority view of the word's use. I don't have to struggle. You do. The thing is, I know you would like to make the case that it's because I'm a theist that I don't accept the way you'd and a minority of atheists would like the word to be used. So I simply want to make certain that that silly notion is put to rest by showing just another example of an Atheist who disagrees with you. You see Stu, I know your method of argumentation. It's all about bashing the theists. So you can say that I'm pre-emptively defending myself against your oft mode of attack.
You proved you appealed to authority, nothing more. The argument can stand whilst citing other facts and opinion, not from just relying on other questionable opinion as "proof".
See above. Oh and see the wiki link for proper appeals to authority.
I repeateadly gave the root meaning and repeatedly showed, where the commonly accepted use of the term atheism to represent one particular worldview, excludes and denies another one which is actually attached directly to the root meaning. You can't get your head around that, fine. That you then start to act like jem or zzzz, well there could be a reason for that and I gave one.
Oh but Stu, would not the Atheists who can't get their head around it be acting like ZZZ & Jem? What about them STU? How do you account for them? Are they theists in disguise?
w/o God. The root definition of atheist.
So what the hell is your problem. Why do you want to go on and on in differnt threads to argue as if they are not?
At this point, it's like, whatever man.
No we don't do we. But in fact they are, aren't they.
Now you are going over stuff again, trying to remake a point which has already been covered in a previous thread.
It is you who brought the matter up in this unrelated thread. You didn't have to. I thought you said you got over this.
Rather than build on areas where there might be some agreement to possibly make some new ground, you seem to only want to pick at this particular one where we don't. Joyfully turning to a form of disdain and general abuse albeit mild, is reason you admonished jem. My suggestion is because it pushes hard againt a point in your theism where you cannot/will not pass. Fair enough. Why not leave it at that. "agree to disagree" as you suggest. But no, you don't do that, you bring in double standards - Do what you say, not what you do.
Were my suggestion to be correct, it simply stands. You may have a problem with it, but that gives no justifiable cause for you to get all pisssy with me about it.
Oh cry me a river old son. I told you why I brought is up. It was for Jem's sake. Not yours, not mine. Jem showed in a few posts that he understands the kind of poster you are. So I figured, "hey if Jem knows that someone was able to let it go with stu, then letting it go with a gentleman like KJkent is a walk in the park."
And I did agree to disagree and if you read correctly you'd know that. But I know your style old son. I know your mode of argumentation. You can't be a theist and not expect Stu to look upon you with even the slightest respect, ultimately. Come on Stu, I read your replies to theists.
The only thing that bothered me during that entire debate was that when I was rebutting your argument, you swore it was because I was a theist. Then I retorted with showing examples of atheists who disagree with your position. Yet you still maintained it was because I was a theist. I knew at some point you'd pull that, but I didn't expect you to maintain it after being shown that it isn't a solely theist position. That just told me you have a hard on for theists. So hard in fact, it's "freaky."
Have the last word and a nice year old son.
