Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_Chap]

It's not so much a matter of being stumped, more a matter of having little discernible interest in actual communication, as opposed to writing huge splurging and barely readable posts full of quotations and interjections, and liberally sprinkled with abuse and condescension. Dartagnan is not to only one to show this tendency, but he is one of the prime examples on this board

Sorry, I am still trying to get used to typing on a laptop (big fingers, tiny keyboard) and I don't always go back and catch every typo. But I don't think your overall point is very compelling to anyone not already in the tank for the atheist camp here.

Did I mention typos? I think it is clear that this was not my point. I am not a member of any "atheist camp", any more than I am a member of the "don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus" camp.

Of course the way he posts is up to him; but as has been remarked on another occasion (and not just by me) his style probably ensures that few people feel like reading his posts. But perhaps he doesn't mind that - it may be that dartagnan's most devoted reader is dartagnan, and he is happy for it to stay that way.

Don't make excuses for your refusal to engage the issues, chap. Nobody cares. You act as though everyone is sitting on the sidelines wondering why you don't engage me, and you feel some strange need to constantly explain why you're not commenting. Nobody is missing you. Get over yourself already.

We all get to address the issues we find it interesting to address, don't we? And comment is free. So is mind-reading, if you want to speculate on my motives. Go right ahead.

Personally, I'd find it really interesting if you could take a break from splurge-quotes and epithets to answer such an eminently reasonable questioner as Tarski:

So the point of debate is narrowed for now to this
"What exactly is this mysterious thing that religion reveals that I cannot know of without religion"
Is it within your rhetorical power to make this clear at all (to anyone here)?

But if you prefer to keep on the way you have done, that is your right.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Did I mention typos? I think it is clear that this was not my point. I am not a member of any "atheist camp", any more than I am a member of the "don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus" camp.

But you are a member of the content-free, clueless-interloper camp.

[_Chap]

Did I mention typos? I think it is clear that this was not my point. I am not a member of any "atheist camp", any more than I am a member of the "don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus" camp.

But you are a member of the content-free, clueless-interloper camp.

Dear sibling in mortality, fellow guttering rushlight of consciousness in the brief interval between two expanses of eternal darkness ... I am privileged to have this one bright moment of your attention. You are an ornament to this board.

(I wonder how they said "content-free, clueless-interloper" in Attic Greek?)

[_antishock8]

Did I mention typos? I think it is clear that this was not my point. I am not a member of any "atheist camp", any more than I am a member of the "don't believe in fairies or Santa Claus" camp.

But you are a member of the content-free, clueless-interloper camp.

QFI, quoted for irony.

[Alf'Omega]

What is it with you guys? You and Schmo stroking each other's refusal to engage the subject matter by assuring yourselves that it is due to my "posting style." This is a crock. As I said before, I have posted the same way for years, and I don't recall any of you complaining when you thought I was a Mormon apostate who had adopted atheism. When you found out I wasn't, suddenly I became the forum's punching bag. And yes, it is pretty damn funny to hear any of you complaining about condescension on my part.

LOL

Contrary to your imagination, I don't remember much about you prior to the whole Zeitgeist thing. I've never been under the illusion that you were an atheist, and couldn't care less what you position is (you don't seem intelligent enough for me to take you seriously). If you don't want to accept the fact that your posting style is what prevents me from engaging you seriously, that's entirely up to you.

However, you should just knock off the illusion that you can read people's minds, because every time you do it, you somehow manage to up the perception that you're a complete moron.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Contrary to your imagination, I don't remember much about you prior to the whole Zeitgeist thing.

Are you one of the idiots who was suckered in by the Zeitgeist movie?

[_marg]

You've obviously got enough to reply to Dart, so I'll wait a bit before adding anything.

[_Some Schmo]

Contrary to your imagination, I don't remember much about you prior to the whole Zeitgeist thing.

Are you one of the idiots who was suckered in by the Zeitgeist movie?

No.

Are you one of the idiots who was suckered in by the Jesus stories?

[_dartagnan]

So chap, do you think you've contributed positively to this thread?

Good grief.

[_Chap]

Personally, I'd find it really interesting if you could take a break from splurge-quotes and epithets to answer such an eminently reasonable questioner as Tarski:

So the point of debate is narrowed for now to this
"What exactly is this mysterious thing that religion reveals that I cannot know of without religion"
Is it within your rhetorical power to make this clear at all (to anyone here)?

I'd feel I had contributed something towards my own amusement and even instruction (I'd prefer that to "contributing positively to this thread", which sounds rather too portentous for our little chat-board - almost like a British public school housemaster talking) if I helped persuade you to answer Tarski's question in a plain and direct way. You even have a special thread of your own for doing that on, courtesy of the indefatigable Tarski.

But if you prefer to keep on the way you have done, that is your right.