reply to post by randyvs
Thank you so much for turning down the volume a bit. I know you to be more then capable of superior posting to this forum. Without all the ( what
could be taken as disrespect ) rederick if you will. I don't want to be to warm and fuzzy but I'm happy you're posting in this thread."]
Thanks for your civil answer.
I hope, that the following comments are comprehensible.
Eventually (but 'eventually' can be far out on the human horizon, e.g."I think, therefore I am" or 'how do we know, what we know') everything is a
self-cointained 'bubble'. Hence my own philosophical scepticism.
But some of the 'bubbles' are very small, only encompassing a few subjective preferences or assumptions, which nonetheless are presented as big
inclusive 'truths' (which falsely suggests 'objectivity'). This, often invasive, presentation, is backed up by more assumptions on top of the original
ones, guesses and even lies in the form of twisting material, as e.g. in the case of misapplied science used for 'proving' some theist postulates.
I usually start my participation on a thread based on a 'bubble' claiming ultimate, absolute 'truth', in a rather harsh, sharp and demanding way. No
nonsense about possessing ultimate 'truth' without communicable evidence and no nonsense of trespassing into other 'bubbles', which on their own terms
functions far, far better (e.g. into the 'bubble' of science/logic which DOES describe its territory in a way superior to any other known method).
Making such boundaries clear and respected sometimes takes a lot of mudthrowing (some people never learn) and has made me impopular in the most
extreme end of the theist group on ATS, who imo will use any means to further their own cause; even intellectual dishonesty and a excessive use of
character defamation (I don't mind defamations, but posts completely without any other material are worthless).
I do not have a position of gnostic (=absolute) anti-theism, I operate similar to the agnostic atheists here. And once reciprocial acceptance of
agnostic (non-absolute) positions are reached, I can be almost housebroken.
(Though in an academic context the positions can be more accentuated, but are on the other hand regulated by 'rules' diminishing frothing around the
So not as a 'command' to you, but as a suggestion: Starting with simplistic black/white positions is waving a red flag; and notice: Refraining from
black/white positions is NOT automatically leading to wishy-washy anything-goes relativism as some theists suggest.
PS Even the value of 'subjective' vs. 'objective' can be debated, but only clearly defined and as a specific issue.
edit on 6-6-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation