Ted Hoffman

AmosThanks for your response, your pontificating tone nothwithstanding.

I believe this discussion has reached its twilight.
Albert would you like to say one last word before I wrap it up?

[Edited to remove a tautology]

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Amos

Your welcome and I enjoyed the discussion but always felt as being an intruder of Alberts tread.

Ted Hoffman

I'm really glad that you did. My impressions on what kind of person you are, are very similar to those I have concerning Albert:
Very widely read, perhaps highly educated(PHD or MA).
Because of this background, a little know-it-all attitude is hard to escape. I say this because of the way you state your beliefs (highly philosophical ones) and you impatiently dismiss requests for elaboration/ support for them. You act as if its inferior to seek (logical)support for your beliefs, as if when someone asks you to back up your statements, he is taking you back or wasting your time. Like he is asking you to stoop down to his level.
You once told me if I am looking for scientific/ logical reasons for your beliefs, I will have to look elsewhere (you remember?).
Of course behind this mask of benign arrogance lurks an articulate person well-versed in almost every area of knowledge.
Its not for me to make value judgements on you but when I think about it, I think you have no clue what lies out there, or how life "works". Because all the sophistry and obfuscation that you have thrown at me seem like attempts to hide a knowledge that is not clear. You are merely engaging in argumentations for sport. Because you have all the spanners and you can throw them into the works. Create confusion as others try to unentangle the mess you created by a simple sleight of your hand.
You were consistent in answering questions I posed to you. But you gave answers that did not directly adress the questions asked. Demands for substantiation were fruitless. So I deduced that you did not have a desire to create or inspire understanding, but to dazzle with your knowledge and baffle with all the philosophical allusions, theological aphorisms you could throw at the mind seeking understanding.
What I saw was not eristic refutation but intellectual goading coupled with sophistry and a veneer of arrogance that discounted the necessity for valid support for the claims you made.
I could be totally wrong. But you have given me no reason to believe that what you hold as your beliefs lies upon a stable foundation - reason.
Unless of course you consider faith that foundation.
Maybe I was too naive to expect a systematic build-up of valid reasons leading to your belief.
Faith can easily take care off all that.
When all is said and done, maybe you feel you did well to "show" them atheists and pat yourself at the back. You could even ask rhetorically "who said it was gonna be easy?".
You "got away".
But allow me to ask one last question:
Do you sincerely believe you did all that you could to make your beliefs (what you say you know to be true) clear - at least logically?

Or your audience just had a very limited understanding?

Either way, thank you for exposing me to the finer aspects of the catholic faith. I would like to believe that with whatever you had(time etc), you did what you could.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>