Why I am an atheist

[Adrift]

I don't think he was ever banned. I only remember him from CARM.

Oh ok. Nevermind then.

[metacrock]

I got no beef, but wasn't Meta banned from this site at some point? I think he has some interesting insights as well, but agree with Carrik that his presentation could use a little work.

I asked to come back and they let me. guess they believe in forgiveness.

ok I'll give him a chance

[metacrock]

Oh ok. Nevermind then.

I was banned from here years ago but they lifted it.

[Adrift]

I asked to come back and they let me. guess they believe in forgiveness.

ok I'll give him a chance

I was banned from here years ago but they lifted it.

Got it. Thanks.

[Carrikature]

For Carrikature; meta really is a good guy, I knew him back in the day on line. He is not dishonest. For meta; Carrikature is also a good guy and tries to be a straight shooter. Perhaps you both just got off on the wrong foot?

Just for clarity sake, I don't think he's dishonest. I'm just not interested in having a conversation with him.

I don't expect that anyone here is really capable of changing anyone else's mind about much of anything. When I talk with you about science or philosophy or whatever, I don't expect I'm going to change your mind about it. It's more important to me to help explain the arguments, and perhaps more important to help you get the terminology right. In my experience, learning the terminology is half the battle. Words just don't mean the same thing everywhere (which is admittedly frustrating).

I get pretty dismissive when I think a person isn't in earnest. I doubt you'll be surprised to learn that I've been frustrated with you in the past, and recently in this thread even. It's always a case of me feeling like you're not actually interested in an explanation but simply want to protest. It's not even that I don't want you to act that way; I just don't want to waste my time and expend energy on someone that is. I'm freer with the ignore feature than a lot of people here, but I try to use it to weed out the noise of those that obviously aren't interested in a dialogue. There's a couple of moderators on this site that would be ignored for just that reason, though obviously that isn't an option.

Nothing about meta's posts, on any thread, tell me he's in earnest. His posts tell me that he can't accept correction (having been told how to spell 'vague', he's still using the misspelled form, as one silly example). His posts tell me that any critique will probably be dismissed as either 1) atheists unable/unwilling to admit he's right, 2) invalid because we don't share his credentials, or 3) frustration and insistence that we just go read his book because the information's all there. So far he hasn't even displayed an understanding that there are more forms of unbelief than the version of atheism he presents. I can say pretty confidently that I don't meet his definition (though obviously some do).

I'll flatter myself for a moment that if you, or anyone else, is interested in my take on something he's presented, you'll ask for it. I don't expect it to actually happen, but I'm perfectly willing to do so. I can't pretend that responses directly to him will be anything but dismissive, and I'd just as soon not go down that route. For now, I'll answer a couple of his points in other places and put him on temporary ignore. If he's still around in a month or two, I'll re-evaluate.

Lastly, I don't think any of this means he's a bad guy. I don't have any information on that front. I'm just not interested in a dialogue with him. I'm not sure there's anyone on this site I think is a bad person, for all that I don't really want to talk to some of them.

[Carrikature]

but agree with Carrik that his presentation could use a little work.

It's good to know that it's not just me. I honestly wonder, sometimes.

[metacrock]

It's good to know that it's not just me. I honestly wonder, sometimes.

why didn't you at least have the guts to sway it in the thread with the argument. Like you thought I wouldn't see it.

the style I used was based upon debate briefs. an outline with references to evidence rather than a smooth essay.

[Carrikature]

For anyone interested, my response to the philosophy thread is here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post303483.

[Carrikature]

why didn't you at least have the guts to sway it in the thread with the argument. Like you thought I wouldn't see it.

the style I used was based upon debate briefs. an outline with references to evidence rather than a smooth essay.

This is my last response to you, and your statements here are a perfect example of why.

1) I told you why I didn't respond there.
2) I responded to you directly in this thread. It's idiotic to claim I thought you wouldn't see it.

For anyone that doubts this, both of these are in post #702 of this thread.

[metacrock]

you are a coward and unread and unlearned.

[seer]

you are a coward and unread and unlearned.

Really meta? Was that necessary? And none of this applies to Carrikature.

[metacrock]

Really meta? Was that necessary? And none of this applies to Carrikature.

was necessary for them to tear down my work and talk a out like it's total crap?

[Adam]

you are a coward and unread and unlearned.

Whoops, no "amen" intended. I just planned to say, "This is all about Cow Poke, isn't it?"

[shunyadragon]

was necessary for them to tear down my work and talk a out like it's total crap?

Careful with the pride. My criticism is specific and not adequately responded to.