Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Finalfan, sorry man, that last post is just overwhelming for me to consider conceptualizing and bringing back into any categorization. If you could do that part for me - put your points back into relation of a specific thesis or subject (even if they don't follow chronologically) - that would be great. As it is right now I just can't conceive of the amount of time it would take me to relate all these very small points together and assemble all the ones that repeat or relate closely and at the same time keeping in mind the direction of the original subject, any additions your making to your case, or any whatever else. In short, I'm at a loss for how disorganized it appears. Is it just me or does (3) appear twice? If there was a reason for that I just don't want to have to use my imagination for any hidden implications.

Also, I think I'm still seeing the tendency to respond to every important statement within a point. Most arguments in this form restate the conclusion and premises different ways within the point in trying to make it clear or make the case. That doesn't mean they're new points to respond to. It just takes that much more time to relate responses.

I've also noticed you seem to assume you've proven something to me in your post then later act as if something I've said previously for my argument against what you're saying must be ridiculous because of it. I don't understand that. You know I'm disagreeing with you right? And in this particular post, right away in 1.1 it seems like you missed that I was already saying I didn't understand your argument/example for justification last time. How can you hold your example as problematic to my argument against justification if I don't understand it, like I said?

Personally I really don't find it as effective to go back and forth between your post and my previous post to grasp the subject and how you respond to it. If you could either quote anything specific you're addressing each point (or subject preferably) or restate the issue in your own words - then give your response it would help me a lot. It just takes time to unite and understand your responses sometimes when they come out of the blue with something like "I was just saying that..." (just an example, if you can catch it, of how many implications and connections there are to make when reading something like that as the intro.)

I really need some over-clarification in a lot of your sentences because much of what you're saying here, I'm afraid, is just bringing my usual response "What???". Just think of it as - I don't know what your implying, I don't understand any new use of terminology within a phrase, I don't know what you're relating to, I don't know why your introducing a new issue, whatever. If it means anything, there's two of us here reading this and both are feeling the same way. It's no use going through this and trying to explain how you think you are being clear - I really don't understand you.

I also feel that some of the things being said are "juvenile" as well. Like the defense made in 8.1. I just don't understand how it's came so far from its basis. I don't know how you arrived at what you're saying and I barely understand you still. Are you sure you understand me and my original complaint?

Anyway, I'm not deriding you, I'm just begging for some clarity. I spend a lot of time already trying to figure out what you're saying in relation to things, what the subject matter is within what you say, and piecing it all together in writing. I'm not trying to make some giant argument to expose something to you, I'm just needing a lot more clarity. There's no need or use to make an argument that you are being clear or that my specific 'points' here are off. In general, I just don't understand what you're trying to say very clearly.

Sorry for the belated response -- things got kind of hectic and I deliberately completely ignored this thread because I might have gotten obsessed with responding to your response if there was one. 

I gave each of what I felt were separate points that I was responding to a number, and made my response.  (3) is referred to in your post twice, because I feel that the points are nearly identical and are both responded to in the same response.  It's completely understandable that you did this, because you didn't see what I was getting at in one of them. 

For (1.1), the example is that one believes and knows that one is in pain.  Just because you didn't understand my reasoning on getting "proof" of the knowledge only based on the belief, doesn't necessarily mean you can't tell me what you think is the PROBLEM with any such attempt.  Since you've said that justification assumes the use of preexisting knowledge, why shouldn't I ask what knowledge you think is necessary to justify that belief? 

As for it being two vs. one on the clarity issue, I can only suggest that you and your (brother, IIRC?) are already looking at it from the same point of view. 

Speaking of clarity, that's what I think 8.1's parent argument was over (though you originally mislabeled it "conciseness"), and by now I think it's obvious that neither of us was clear to the other (though clear to ourselves).  Was there something else of importance here, or can we drop it?  I mean, I have no interest in conceding, but it just seems like a particularly life-draining aspect of this debate and I'm not sure what's to be gained anymore. 

(INSERT SEGUE HERE)

It's been becoming obvious for a while that we have very different styles that we're trying to debate with, aside from the subject matter.  I keep doing point-by-point and you keep trying to synthesize it into a big essay, etc. etc.  Since it's giving you so much trouble, I'll try to work on a more holistic version of the previous post.  Right now, I tentatively intend, unless you object, to leave out (7) because it's a forgotten point, (8) because it's REALLY pointless, and (9) because it's not really going anywhere (AKA only kind of pointless). 

Please forgive me if it takes a while, this doesn't exactly have my undivided attention right now.