Attention Atticus of Amber

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I am no longer enjoying our debates about religion. Your scattergun approach is forcing me to take time away from my family and my chosen career to respond to willfully ignorant (what Rowan would describe as fashionably ignorant) questions about my beliefs. You have no excuse; there are plenty of books and websites that could educate you. I have recommended a number in my time; if you (or anyone else) would like to start a thread about books, etc. on religious subjects, I’d love to contribute

Let me give you an example: You recently asked me to give a response to twelve theologically dense statements on Christianity; the first one alone could take an entire book to properly examine. (incidentally, the book has been written; it’s called Honest to God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_to_God) and this isn’t the first time I’ve recommended it).

I responded by redirecting you to a better communicator than I’ll ever be and a man whose job it is to answer questions like this. You don’t like his response? Fine by me. That’s the only one I have the time, energy or inclination to give.

I have two reasons why I am still responding to you at all. Firstly, you are slandering my faith and my brothers and sisters in faith and someone equally ignorant might be taken in. Secondly, I have an eternal hope that you will finally get a clue.

I am not negotiating here, I am telling you how things are going to be:

1) I will respond to general theological or metaphysical questions on this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=916). I will respond to a single point or question in your most recent post. If there are multiple points or questions, I will pick the one that’s most interesting to me and respond to it. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

2) I will respond to specific accusations that you raise about the life and works of Mother Teresa on this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622). I will take a single specific accusation per post and respond to it. If there are multiple accusations, I will pick the one that’s most interesting to me and respond to it. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

3) If you begin another religion-related thread or contribute to another religion-related thread, I will respond to a single point in your most recent post. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

4) You are (currently) the only poster who I will be responding to in this manner

5) I reserve the right to alter the restrictions I am placing on my behaviour at any time; I may inform you of this, I may not

If you respond to this post in any way other than a variant on “I accept these restrictions”, I will put you on my ignore list.

If you respond to me by rep or PM with a complaint about this post, I will put you on my ignore list.

If you complain to our hosts about my behaviour and I find out about it, I will put you on my ignore list.

If you do not moderate your posting style to accommodate these changes in my behaviour, I may you on my ignore list. Or I may not. Depends on how much I think I can annoy you by picking in a point that isn't the main thrust of your argument.

If I put you on my ignore list, I will modify my signature to say that you are on my ignore list and the reason why you are on my ignore list. You will not like this sig.

As I am currently the only person who will engage with you on the subject of religion and you pretty much only post on the subject of religion (I’ve checked), if I put you on my ignore list there is absolutely no reason for you to visit this website at all.

Have a nice day.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I am no longer enjoying our debates about religion.

That's a shame. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.

Your scattergun approach is forcing me to take time away from my family and my chosen career

Hey, that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not forcing you to do anything. Of course your life and family take priority. Why would you ever think otherwise?

It's only the Internet, man.

But one thing I (and bob) really, genuinely, desperately do want to know is: What excluded middle? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

EDIT: Re "scattergun approach", point taken. See the other "EDIT" comments below.

to respond to willfully ignorant (what Rowan would describe as fashionably ignorant) questions about my beliefs.

That's unfair and you know it. And this from a man who refuses to read the New Atheists he so airily dismisses? Dare I say who is so "fashionably ignorant" in his dismissal? That's beneath you RF.

You have no excuse; there are plenty of books and websites that could educate you. I have recommended a number in my time; if you (or anyone else) would like to start a thread about books, etc. on religious subjects, I’d love to contribute.

Already tried. The book's called the God Delusion. Available at all good book stores. It's actually one of the best selling book on religion right now.

Let me give you an example: You recently asked me to give a response to twelve theologically dense statements on Christianity; the first one alone could take an entire book to properly examine. (incidentally, the book has been written; it’s called Honest to God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_to_God) and this isn’t the first time I’ve recommended it).

I responded by redirecting you to a better communicator than I’ll ever be and a man whose job it is to answer questions like this. You don’t like his response? Fine by me. That’s the only one I have the time, energy or inclination to give.

Here we may have a misunderstanding. The Spong thing is a sideshow as far as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have the time, I don't really care on that issue. It just came up in the course of a discussion with other posters and I thought you might have a view.

My real concern, indeed, the only issue on which I desperately want to hear your response right now is: What excluded middle? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

I have two reasons why I am still responding to you at all. Firstly, you are slandering my faith and my brothers and sisters in faith and someone equally ignorant might be taken in.

Slandering? Oh dear. A little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Christianity has done a great deal of good in history to set against the evil it has done. I'm not certain, but I'm reasonably sure the balance shoot to date is positive. All I say is that it's underlying belief system appears to me to be based on a falsehood or mistake. Surely questioning a religion's truth claims isn't slandering it?

Secondly, I have an eternal hope that you will finally get a clue.

Well, here's how you can get your wish. It's simple. Just answer me this: What excluded middle? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

I am not negotiating here, I am telling you how things are going to be:

1) I will respond to general theological or metaphysical questions on this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=916). I will respond to a single point or question in your most recent post. If there are multiple points or questions, I will pick the one that’s most interesting to me and respond to it. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

2) I will respond to specific accusations that you raise about the life and works of Mother Teresa on this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622). I will take a single specific accusation per post and respond to it. If there are multiple accusations, I will pick the one that’s most interesting to me and respond to it. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

3) If you begin another religion-related thread or contribute to another religion-related thread, I will respond to a single point in your most recent post. I shall expect you to moderate your posting style accordingly

4) You are (currently) the only poster who I will be responding to in this manner

5) I reserve the right to alter the restrictions I am placing on my behaviour at any time; I may inform you of this, I may not

If you respond to this post in any way other than a variant on “I accept these restrictions”, I will put you on my ignore list.

Huh? That's perfectly reasonable and I have no idea how you would gain the impression I expected anything else???

EDIT: Oh, I get it. Bouncing around. Fair enough. See the "EDIT" addition at the end of the thread.

If you respond to me by rep or PM with a complaint about this post, I will put you on my ignore list.

Huh? The only time I've ever rep commented or PM'd you is to make it clear that I've genuinely trying to understand your position. What's your problem with that?

If you complain to our hosts about my behaviour and I find out about it, I will put you on my ignore list.

Huh? I've never complained to hosts or moderators about anyone's behaviour towards me. The only incidents that could possibly be called exceptions (they aren't) are when I complained once about the way Cyberzombie had been banned (the RAB incident) and once when I PM'd the mods after being insulted by GL to say that I'd be happy to not respond to him but that if it went on, I'd feel compelled to respond.

If you do not moderate your posting style to accommodate these changes in my behaviour, I may you on my ignore list. Or I may not. Depends on how much I think I can annoy you by picking in a point that isn't the main thrust of your argument.

If I put you on my ignore list, I will modify my signature to say that you are on my ignore list and the reason why you are on my ignore list. You will not like this sig.

As I am currently the only person who will engage with you on the subject of religion and you pretty much only post on the subject of religion (I’ve checked), if I put you on my ignore list there is absolutely no reason for you to visit this website at all.

Have a nice day.

My my, we do have a high opinion of ourselves, don't we? The believe the appropriate response here is that great Australian expression, "Get over your self, mate."

Listen RF, I genuinely want to understand your position. I'm frustrated because you seem to be avoiding giving straight answers (btw, What excluded middle? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)) Now it may be that you seem not to be giving straight answers for a good reason, in which case, I'd love to know what that reason is.

I'm more than happy to be shown I'm wrong. I'm more than happy to be persuaded. I genuinely want to understand your position. I'm sorry if I've upset you.

But please, if you don't answer anything else, please help me (and bob) understand this: What excluded middle? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)


EDIT: BTW, I've moved the stuff on teh definition of god to the Reason vs Religion thread. You're quite right, whe we're going to discuss the issue of "What excluded middle?" (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8), it should be there. I've put a link to the reason vs religion thread at the end of the Mother Teresa thread, just after my last post about Bob and my question as to what you mean by the "excluded middle"? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

[Adriak]

Atticus, is it true you have Northcott on ignore? If so, why? If Northcott has provided an answer to your question, why not review it and reply in kind?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, is it true you have Northcott on ignore? If so, why? If Northcott has provided an answer to your question, why not review it and reply in kind?

Because there_is_no_bob did it for me. And Bob seemed wholly unimpressed by that supposed response. From what I saw quoted, I agree with Bob. Follow the "What excluded middle?" links in my response to RF and you'll see the interplay between Bob and Northcott.

Unfortunately, Northcott has the ability to so insult and troll me that I tend to lose my cool. In the interests of my own blood pressure, and at the suggestion of several other posters, I decided to put him on ignore. Ironically, Bob, who Northcott seems to be able to restrain himself from insulting, pretty much said everything I would have said in the Mother Teresa thread (and better that I would have said it).

Moreover, it is RF who keeps avoiding the question by crying "excluded middle". Surely it's RF who should explain what he, himself, means by that phrase?

In any case, it would be very unfair to put Northcott's words in RF's mouth - especially as Bob so thoroughly demolished those very words.

And the question still remains: What excluded middle?

[Adriak]

Because there_is_no_bob did it for me. And Bob seemed wholly unimpressed by that supposed response. From what I saw quoted, I agree with Bob. Follow the "What excluded middle?" links in my response to RF and you'll see the interplay between Bob and Northcott.

Unfortunately, Northcott has the ability to so insult and troll me that I tend to lose my cool. In the interests of my own blood pressure, and at the suggestion of several other posters, I decided to put him on ignore. Ironically, Bob, who Northcott seems to be able to restrain himself from insulting, pretty much said everything I would have said in the Mother Teresa thread (and better that I would have said it).

Moreover, it is RF who keeps avoiding the question by crying "excluded middle". Surely it's RF who should explain what he, himself, means by that phrase?

In any case, it would be very unfair to put Northcott's words in RF's mouth - especially as Bob so thoroughly demolished those very words.

And the question still remains: What excluded middle?
If Northcott's responses pose a health risk, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure that you realize that Hastur's frustration with you mirrors yours with Northcott. If you don't, I assume you are either oblivious or just trolling him.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

If Northcott's responses pose a health risk, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure that you realize that Hastur's frustration with you mirrors yours with Northcott. If you don't, I assume you are either oblivious or just trolling him.

Now that really is an example of the excluded middle fallacy. ;) (I'm awar that I appear to be frustrating him; but I'm not doing it deliberately and indeed, I'm actually trying reasonably hard to smooth the emotional side of all this so we can get at a valuable discussion of the real issues).

As far as I know, I've never insulted Hastur, or called him a bigot, or called him dishonest, or attacked his character - all things that Northcott has done to me, repeatedly. If anything I've said to or about RF has been interpreted that way, then that was not my intent. *

I have a profound respect for Hastur's decency and integrity.

Where I point out inconsistencies in his position, I'm not intending to attribute deliberate dishonesty or disingenuous to him. Far from it. Indeed, I keep asking him to explain because I'm convinced that he is being honest. And that being the case, I either (1) want to understand what he really is saying, or (2) help him understand the inherent illogicalities in his position. I'm genuinely undecided as to which is true, (1) or (2). Indeed, I'm still leaning towards the idea (though less so as time goes on) that it's me who's not getting it and the only problem is that Hastur needs to actually spell out what he means in a way that slow thinking logic-machines like Bob and I can understand.

*I recall one "sing the bull to sleep" comment that might be read that way. In retrospect, I'd word that differently. I meant it ironically ("As in, surely Hastur, you aren't trying to avoid the issue?") but, given the current tensions, it is apt to be misinterpreted. It's done now, though, and I can only hope for the best.

[Adriak]

Now that really is an exampel fo the excluded middle fallacy. ;)
Touché. ;)

Where I point out inconsistencies in his position, I'm not intending to attribute deliberate dishonesty or disingenuous to him. Far from it. Indeed, I keep asking him to explain because I'm convinced that he is being honest. And that being the case, I either (1) want to understand what he really is saying, or (2) help him understand the inherent illogicalities in his position. I'm genuinely undecided as to which is true, (1) or (2). Indeed, I'm still leaning towards the idea (though less so as time goes on) that it's me who's not getting it and the only problem is that Hastur needs to actually spell out what he means in a what that slow logic machines like Bob and me can understand.If that is the case, I appreciate your candor in this matter.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Touché. ;)

If that is the case, I appreciate your candor in this matter.

I assure you that's the case. I'd appreciate it if you'd review the relevant posts and tell me, from a neutral perspective, whether that's the impression you've gotten.

And while you're at it, I'd appreciate your two cents on the issues. I think, for whatever reason, my involvement creates as much heat as light and the intervention of third parties (such as bob's) can really cool matters down.

For what its worth, I've written a summary of the controversy so far, from my perspective, in the Reason vs Religion thread.

[GreyOne]

Hey Atticus. You're a tool.

[Schizm]

Hey Atticus. You're a tool.

For once, I agree with this picklefucking probaholic.

[GreyOne]

For once, I agree with this picklefucking probaholic.

Hey I don't call you a Tetris-cheating, hairy armpit-loving patchouli boy do I?

Oh wait...

[Brynja]

You know things have degenerated when Richard is brought to a point where he feels a post like this is required.

[GreyOne]

You know things have degenerated when Richard is brought to a point where he feels a post like this is required.

I long ago gave up "debating" with Atticus. I instead turned to ridiculing and poking him and his arrogant, condescending, incredibly obtuse mannerisms whenever the opportunity presents itself. Good times. Good times.

[The Winslow]

Ironically, Bob, who Northcott seems to be able to restrain himself from insulting, pretty much said everything I would have said in the Mother Teresa thread
So there's irony...
(and better that I would have said it).
On second thought, there's no irony.

[Ancalagon]

You know things have degenerated when Richard is brought to a point where he feels a post like this is required.

I didn't bother writing the post, I just don't reply to atticus' posts on the topic anymore.

[Northcott]

Atticus, is it true you have Northcott on ignore? If so, why? If Northcott has provided an answer to your question, why not review it and reply in kind?

Because after watching Atticus insult the Hell out of people over and over and over again, using carefully couched phrases, passive-aggressive sniping, and exceptionally condescending terminology -- and then get pissy when people called him on that behaviour -- I decided to be blunt with him. When he started his worship of Dawkins, and posted that he was buying into the idea that moderate religious thought is to blame for the presence of extremist behaviour, and that lack of ability for rational thought should exclude religious people from positions of responsibility in society, I bluntly said that those were idiotic ideas and that I was disappointed he was buying into that bullshit.

He flipped out. My insulting Dawkins' ideas apparently amounted to a personal attack, and so he and NRG had a fit over it. I won't lie: I was a right bastard and poked away with a sharp verbal stick. Atticus worked himself up into a tizzy, and spent a lot of time screaming about what an irrational religious fanatic I obviously am, posting macros, etc. Oh, and swore up and down that I wasn't really getting to him. Nice to see the truth here. :D

For my part, I poked at him every time he raised his head to repeat the same tired bullshit. I called him on the disingenuity of his insulting posts and insulted him quite directly, pointed out rather ruthlessly the insane number of holes in his arguments, and called him a bigot for his prejudicial notions about the ability to categorize all people of all religions (regardless of age, ethnicity, culture, etc) under a single umbrella of thought. It should be noted that there was a grace period in there where I stopped insulting the Hell out of him and asked direct questions regarding the inconsistencies of his stance, which he refused to answer.

He continued the behaviour here, so I put one flaming post here, in the Off-Campus Bar -- and hit the ignore list.


Personally, I'm amazed that Rich has shown this much patience with Atticus. For every question Atticus has asked, Rich has given an answer. Often with more respect than is deserved, as it's been invariably returned with demeaning or condescending remarks; belittlement of Rich's faith, referring to his beliefs as superstition, prating on about his delusions, dismissing thoughtful answers as dishonest, "playing word games", or outright nonsense. Only a couple times did I see Rich sink to the same level, and always in direct response to such a statement being lobbed at him.


The above is the reason why I called Atticus a liar (or rather, said he was full of shit; two-faced little weasel, and other colourful statements): if you honestly desire discourse with an individual, and truly wish to learn the scope and depths of what they believe, you don't fucking talk down to them, belittle what you're asking about, or treat them as an inferior. Specific cases of his behaviour were pointed out, politely, in hopes that he might change to a productive path of discourse; he not only failed to respond to those, he continued to seek a more offensive path.

After a couple years of being polite and reasonable with Atticus when others were calling him an assmuch, I decided to call him far worse.

[Northcott]

As an added thought:
Funny thing is, since I've hit the ignore list, I'm apparently still a hot topic! I can not only count on Atticus to take cheap jabs at me in random threads, but he's also apparently got some kind of funky psychic abilities! Without being able to see my posts, he knows that Bob "poked holes" in my statements; seeing neither the entirety of my statements, nor my response to Bob.

I'm kinda impressed. For an atheist, his divination ability is strong. :D

[Freedom Canadian]

That's it ! I'm calling you Atticon. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Gosh! This is all terribly distracting! I even took Northcott off ignore to see what all the fuss was about. One could go for days - ranging far, far off-topic - responding to all that.

But it occurs to me that there's a rather simple way to test these claims AND get the discussion back on topic: Bob, Adriak, or anyone neutral on the issue, go back, and read the recent posts and tell me, what is this "excluded middle" Hastur and Northcott keep talking about? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

If you can find a coherent answer from either of those guys, I'll happily admit that I've somehow massively missed the point here. Indeed, I'll actually be extremely happy (though a bit embarrassed at being so think), as I'll finally understand what the hell is being said.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So there's irony...

On second thought, there's no irony.

Oh no, there was irony - especially in the parenthetical bit. ;)

[GreyOne]

As an added thought:
Funny thing is, since I've hit the ignore list, I'm apparently still a hot topic! I can not only count on Atticus to take cheap jabs at me in random threads, but he's also apparently got some kind of funky psychic abilities! Without being able to see my posts, he knows that Bob "poked holes" in my statements; seeing neither the entirety of my statements, nor my response to Bob.

I'm kinda impressed. For an atheist, his divination ability is strong. :D

Hey man! Join the club!

[Ancalagon]

Gosh! This is all terribly distracting! I even took Northcott off ignore to see what all the fuss was about. One could go for days - ranging far, far off-topic - responding to all that.

But it occurs to me that there's a rather simple way to test these claims AND get the discussion back on topic: Bob, Adriak, or anyone neutral on the issue, go back, and read the recent posts and tell me, what is this "excluded middle" Hastur and Northcott keep talking about? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

If you can find a coherent answer from either of those guys, I'll happily admit that I've somehow massively missed the point here. Indeed, I'll actually be extremely happy (though a bit embarrassed at being so think), as I'll finally understand what the hell is being said.

Wonder no more friends, his divination is just rope and mirrors! Ergo religion doesn't exist!

:D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Wonder no more friends, his divination is just rope and mirrors! Ergo religion doesn't exist!

:D


Yes, yes, but what is this "excluded middle" Hastur and Northcott keep talking about? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

[Northcott]

Hey man! Join the club!

Whiskey and hookers at the Wednesday night meeting?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Whiskey and hookers at the Wednesday night meeting?

Yes, yes, absolutely; but first what is this "excluded middle" you and Hastur keep talking about? (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622&page=8)

[Northcott]

Go back and re-read, Grasshopper. It has been explained to you ad nauseum. I'm nauseumed by it. Ad to the nauseum, even. The text is still there, I'm not going to bother re-hashing it unless NoBob chooses to continue the discussion.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Go back and re-read, Grasshopper. It has been explained to you ad nauseum. I'm nauseumed by it. Ad to the nauseum, even. The text is still there, I'm not going to bother re-hashing it unless NoBob chooses to continue the discussion.

I've read it and, as Bob pointed out so well, it doesn't even remotely approach answering the question. I suggest you are the one who needs to go back and re-read. Particularly Bob's posts, since you're more likely to read those with an open mind.

EDIT: Help me out here guys. Does anyone think there's an anything like an answer to the question for what the supposed excluded middle is from either Northcott or Hastur? Bob can't see it. I can't see it. If we're both blind, can someone point me to it?

[Northcott]

Done and responded to. The point remains.

Many people have pondered the ideas put forth and grasped the meaning behind them, whether or not they believe in the notions presented. Your inability to understand the points made does not invalidate their existence.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Done and responded to. The point remains.

Many people have pondered the ideas put forth and grasped the meaning behind them, whether or not they believe in the notions presented. Your inability to understand the points made does not invalidate their existence.

Does that apply to Bob too?

[Northcott]

Does that apply to Bob too?

NoBob has yet to respond. When he does, the conversation may or may not reach a conclusion. Until then, it would be silly to claim that it does or does not.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

That's unfair and you know it. And this from a man who refuses to read the New Atheists he so airily dismisses?

Already tried. The book's called the God Delusion. Available at all good book stores.

Christopher Hitchens is a fabulist. I take what he says only slightly more seriously than I take the pronouncements of David Ike.

I love Richard Dawkins; the Selfish Gene is one of my favourite books. When he writes about faith, I find myself in complete agreement on him, except I would substitute the words "fanaticism" for the word "faith" - I think it's more precise and less loaded. However, based on my brief reading of the book and the associated reviews, I am not yet convinced that what he's attacking has anything to do with what I believe. Richard Skinner does make an interesting point in Ekklesia this week (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5721) that "the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship."

However, I will pick the book up when it hits discount bookstores - I ought to read it, but I don't think I'll find anything interesting or new

I have not yet read Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris; because of this I have not made any comments about their works. Sam Harris fascinates me and I will make time to look into him

[Northcott]

I love Richard Dawkins; the Selfish Gene is one of my favourite books. When he writes about faith, I find myself in complete agreement on him, except I would substitute the words "fanaticism" for the word "faith" - I think it's more precise and less loaded.

I think that would do a great deal for creating more credibility for his argument, but I'd still give a funny look to the notion that moderate thought is responsible for fanaticsm through creation of a foundation of respect that allows the latter to thrive. I think that's utter nonsense, and a couple nights of watching the tube should clear that up for most people. The way in which religion is death with by society in general has a very definite tone. Fanaticism in specific is broadly mocked or played up as a trait of the villainous.