second edit

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. 

This really makes you looks like a complete ass. Honestly, how angry do you have to be to post this.

The guy practically said 'I plan to brainwash my child to believe the same things I do', to say that his child never had the right to disagree may be a slight exagerration but the point still holds.

I don't believe parents should brainwash their children about anything to do with religious or scientific beliefs. When I was a little kid I had a copy of the bible but my parents never actually encouraged me to be religious (or irreligious for that matter).

This really seems so stupid to me. Everyone thinks they need to fit into some crowd. A person's inner feelings should guide their religion. No one needs a certificate saying anything. I'm not an athiest, but I don't believe in most Christian "rules" either. Religion was made up by people. All religions are basically the same with each one having their own way of doing things. The overall objective of "religion" was to make people be "good." My "good" is not the same as everyone else's "good." I make my own rules and try to be a good person. That doesn't mean I let people walk all over me, I try to respect other people's point of view and let each be his/her own. I don't need a certificate saying that I am my own person and I don't go to church. That shouldn't matter. Spending time getting to know with someone, without knowing anything about their religious habits is how you know who are the truely good people. No certificate of babtism or de-babtism is going to matter at all.

Oh wow, could the thread actually be resurrecting itself, instead of being a corpse animated only by the neverending war between myself and appolose?

Odder still is that outlawauron actually sifted through our debate and found something to respond to.  Are people still actually reading this thing?!

I'm actually glad I'm not atheist. It seems depressing thinking that once you die that's it. There's nothing to look forward to.

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?

I feel I must address this before you respond next. When I said "I truly don't know what you're saying" in regards to your example/point, I mean it. I don't understand the propositions in your reasons and I don't understand your proposition in the conclusion (and naturally how you arrived at it). Thus I can't tell you what any problem is because I don't even know what you're trying to communicate. If I gave you an argument in latin you would be in the same position. You wouldn't be able to tell me if you agreed to it or if there were problems with it because you wouldn't understand it. The only thought that came to me when reading the conclusion of your example/point was a blaring contradiction by the definition of terms. If that was true, that would be meaningless to me and so I still wouldn't know what it meant in that sense. I'm waiting for something clearer on that to remove that lonely possibility in the back of my mind.

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.

It's really not the point of view that imposing confusion into what you're saying. It's just truly not being able to understand what you're saying. Your sentences and the relationship between them just seem very indefinite and strange at times to me. Like from the first section I quoted from you in this response: "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?" I don't really know what relevent relationship (or rather logical step in the discussion) that has to what you just said previous to that. I don't know where the statement is coming from - that is to say, I don't know why it's being said... I mean it sort of sounds like it's in response to some previous contention of mine but without any indication I can't make a connection out of the blue. I really don't even easily understand what the relationship is between the things in the sentence itself. That is to say, why should you be asking what knowledge I think is neccessary to justify belief? I just don't get it. I think about how I've posed my position as stating that justification is meaningless, thus there can be no 'process' (justification) for turning belief to knowledge, and that knowledge must simply be given to an individual for him to have knowledge (this being the conclusion, of course, stating revelation as an answer to epistemology). I think about all that in relation what you're asking there and I just don't know what you could possibly mean in addressing it to my position (and in a way, I'm not necessarily sure I know what it means by itself). Maybe I could figure something out for this sentence if I put in a lot more time and thought but I just don't think that's something I should have to do.

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.

   Well, I feel I'm going point by point and that you're going either paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, or having your point spread out in seperate 'points' amidst others without a categorization/heading/direction of argument (which is why I thought maybe you weren't catching that just because a reason or conclusion was being restated within a point, it doesn't mean it's a seperate point - explaining the apparent repitition in seperate points you made I thought I was finding).
   When I argued against justification I made that one section/point. When you disagreed with the principles of what I was saying I attempted to keep them under that point. When you disagreed with the example within that point and said something else was occuring I seperated it and made it a point. When you gave me a case for justification or troublesome implication for my position I combined all that I saw on that into a point.
   I'm trying to keep some unity in the direction of the argument this way. I don't see how we'd be able to make much progress without it. Otherwise it would turn into a million little points being made on a hundred other points being made on, say, ten actual whole points.

Again I'm sorry to sound like I'm just bashing so much. It's just that it truly truly overwhelms me sometimes lol. Like I look at what I see as a mess and it stresses me out. Eh, if I think it's not gonna get much clearer and the same misunderstandings are gonna take place I may have to drop out, seeing that I may get awefully busy here soon. Well, we'll see.