Mike Clawson and Adrian (and Aj, et al.) have been having a phantom argument. There is no actual debate because there is no meeting of the minds. In order to actually have a productive discussion about the nature of God (a more abstract concept) there has to be agreement on more simple concepts (a definition of God, etc.)

The way I see it, if the debate was boiled down to its most basic level, there would have to be some agreement on whether God, in fact, exists. Unfortunately, I anticipate that there can be no agreement on this issue—which makes any higher-order discussion about the nature of God fairly superfluous.

Maybe it would be best if the discussion around here kept to subjects in which all parties can agree on the basic definitions involved and thus carry on more friendly and more productive conversation. The easiest way to do this: stick to the topic of the original post.

Lest our more competitive natures control us, let’s also remember that this is a place for friendly conversation in the hopes of reaching mutual respect and understanding. If anyone ever proves anything to anyone here at FriendlyAtheist.com, I’ll eat my hat (and I have a big hat). Maybe we should be less caught up with proof and more caught up with developing productive relationships with people who have different viewpoints than our own. Isn’t that what sets us all apart from the fundamentalists (on either side) anyway?

I will try to tone it down. In return, if you see me again and you think I’ve gone over the top, please let me know.

Adrian, Not at all the response I expected. This side of you is your stronger weapon than the other one… Case in point: Now I’m embarrassed about even bringing it up, wondering if I was too quick to judge. You’re fine. Just be yourself.

Mike,

You misunderstood me. I didn’t mean ditto as in “same to you.” I meant ditto as in I agree with your previous comment about not believing in the same god that Dawkins, et al. are trying to describe.

Thanks for clarifying Linda. And thanks for the support.

I just found some of your comments to Mike very condescending and provoking. It looked as though you were trying to get a rise out of him.

Yep, that’s how it came across to me too. I’m sorry if I reacted poorly to that, but I have a hard time engaging in constructive conversation when I feel like the other person really isn’t interested in understanding what I’m saying and is only focused on proving themselves right no matter what I say. I tend to get more argumentative than I normally would in those situations. It’s one of my many flaws.

Thank you for the elaboration. Mike does frustrate me for reasons I’ve already explained and while I don’t think I’ve ever said anything personal about him, you’re right that I don’t much respect his argument and I didn’t try to hide it. I do respect him personally and others here which is why I’ve tried to present as many alternate explanations, elaborations and sources whenever they came up. You may not believe me, but I would take it as a great sign of respect if someone who disagreed with me would do the same to me rather than placidly nodding and saying “to each his own” which I see as being very passive aggressive and disrespectful. Sounds like you think he’s being mild and moderate when I think he’s anything but.

Still, I can see how some of my rhetoric can be aggravating and provocative and in the future, I will try to tone it down. In return, if you see me again and you think I’ve gone over the top, please let me know.

You misunderstood me. I didn’t mean ditto as in “same to you.” I meant ditto as in I agree with your previous comment about not believing in the same god that Dawkins, et al. are trying to describe.

Adrian,

I really have no problem with what you say and the facts you present. I just found some of your comments to Mike very condescending and provoking. It looked as though you were trying to get a rise out of him. Maybe I’m overly sensitive today. Back and forth conversation is fine, but it is extremely redundant when no one is budging and same things are said over and over and over and over…and when rude comments get thrown in on top of that, well… But what else in new, right? Sorry for butting in. I didn’t mean to accuse you of being close-minded. Really… thank you for your thoughtful explanation.

Thanks man, that’s a good description. I have a hard time placing discussions about what I see as “reality” – what happened, what exists, what’s real – in the context of a discussion of mere beliefs since, if there is an objective reality then all beliefs are not made equal. But clearly whatever I might feel about this, it isn’t shared by others. I think you’re right that I should deal with it or end up getting frustrated.

Gonna take some work!

‘preciate the perspective.

With Mike, it’s like talking to a Chatty Cathy doll – he keeps spitting out the same lines without any regard for the conversation and certainly never bothers to substantiate anything.

I can’t say I disagree. And yet I see you and him having two different conversations here. Allow me to try and make you aware of the other conversation.

I’m trying to dialogue the best way that I know, but it rather relies on having people that are open to a back and forth. Throw out ideas, see if they can be supported, look at the evidence for the other side, and then see what happens.

Yes, for what it’s worth, this is what I see you attempting. It is not what Mike is doing. Yes, I can see how that’s frustrating for you… especially since at some points it looks as though Mike is interacting in the way you are expecting, but when examined his assertions become… how did you put it?…”shapeless, like a narcotic fog”.

What I think you should take away from this is to just accept that this is how Mike is. This is how he expresses himself and his beliefs. He’s having a discussion with you which is not a debate. It is clear that his feelings on these matters are not up for debate, in fact so much so that his groundrules do not match your groundrules.

It’s like you’re teaching a math class and he’s practicing modern dance. For awhile it looked like he was dancing in a perfect parabola, and so you thought you’d check his geometry proof! Well, that didn’t work, now did it!

But what I’d say you should take away from this discussion is knowlege and understanding of what Mike Clawson is like, and perhaps how to spot someone who’s dancing a parabola rather than formulating a geometry proof… and choose how you’d like to interact with them with that in mind, rather than assuming they’re interacting in the way you enjoy.

Peace, man.

I was not meaning to offend you in any way. You know that I respect your and others’ views (I hope.) With your and AJ’s comments, I just felt that you were disqualifying my beliefs. That I was using the word God just to appease the other Christians. I was only trying to state that my beliefs are just as valid as theirs, NOT that it is more valid or the way it is or should be. Not at all. I’ve never done that as long as I’ve posted here… not intentionally anyway.

When I said it is not just an emotion, I meant for me. FOR ME.