tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6637248110930658708..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: What Atheism Is NotAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5536664067892322652009-10-13T20:25:22.335-06:002009-10-13T20:25:22.335-06:00Sorry about the double post, I just realized there...Sorry about the double post, I just realized there was an issue I forgot to address in my initial post above.<br /><br /><br /> Alonzo said:<br />"What you need to do to refute my thesis is to show that the common person on the street - the general public - the average reader of any tract in which these terms are used - habitually uses these terms in the way described.<br /><br />And that is simply not true."<br /><br /><br /> Before any of my above objections can even be addressed, It seems clear to me that you must substantiate this claim. What research did you perform before typing the words, "simply not true"? I am honestly not convinced it is true and considering the measure of references both Kip and I have posted (plus several dictionaries I could post to further back up my position) it seems to me your position is nothing more than a blind assertion.<br /><br /> Again, sorry about the double post, I meant to put this in the beginning of my above post but was distracted...Jynxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07462596817200170804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35444932862784048192009-10-13T17:02:28.184-06:002009-10-13T17:02:28.184-06:00Alonzo said:
"You determine the meaning of a ...Alonzo said:<br />"You determine the meaning of a term by looking how native speakers of a language use that term. Competent English speakers do not use the term 'atheist' to refer to cats, rocks, chairs, tomatoes, or any other thing incapable of having beliefs.<br />However, they would certainly accept the proposition that the phrase, "does not believe that there is a God" applies to cats, rocks, chairs, tomatoes, or any other thing incapable of having beliefs. "<br /><br /><br /> I just don't see a problem here. People use terms like "flirtatious", "evil" and "stoic" in reference to inanimate objects when describing them, although it is technically invalid to do so. Furthermore, what<br />if enough atheists who speak publicly about their viewpoints on religion manage to convince those people who do use the term "atheism" like you do to adopt their definition? At that point the "general public" will explicitly use the term in the same way that prominent atheist thinkers/writers do such as George H. Smith. If this occurs it will happen over time. At what point would you consider it rational to utilize "atheism" as people like George H. Smith do?<br /><br /> Even the Catholic Encyclopedia contains within it multiple definitions of the word, "atheist". One of which states: "A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. " It further states that according to this form of atheism: "no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being. "<br /><br /> The Cambridge Companion to Atheism talks about its definition on pages 28-29 and mentions that there will be : "as many varieties of atheism as there are varieties of theism." Does that mean the scholars responsible for this book are all practising absurdity, illogic and guilty of ignoring evidence?<br /> <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />"What you need to do to refute my thesis is to show that the common person on the street - the general public - the average reader of any tract in which these terms are used - habitually uses these terms in the way described.<br /><br />And that is simply not true."<br /><br /><br /><br /> The general public uses the term "theory" to mean something like a guess. This problem is apparent in the continuous and exhausting efforts by atheists to explain why evolution being "just a theory" is not a mark against it. Does that mean that scientists are incorrect and absurd and illogical when they use it to mean something different? If not, why not? <br /><br /> If you mean to say the average reader of any tract in which the use of the term "theory" is applied in the way scientists use the term (like a scientific journal) , I could just as easily say that the average reader of atheistic literature does use the term habitually to mean "without a belief in a god or gods". As you have observed, clearly the use of this form of the definition is widespread and common with popular atheist authors.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Alonzo said: <br /> "An atheist is someone who, if asked whether the proposition, "At least one God exists" is true or false, would confidently answer that it is false."<br /><br /> Where does one with the viewpoint of theological non-cognitivism fit in? I don't see how it is valid to describe someone who sees the term "god" as being meaningless gibberish as being able to "answer confidently" that the above mentioned proposition is false.<br /><br /> If someone asked you whether, "Greeblefroks exist - true or false?" would you confidently answer false?<br /><br /><br /> This just seems silly to me.Jynxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07462596817200170804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73730733593156342952009-06-29T04:40:54.489-06:002009-06-29T04:40:54.489-06:00Spuddy
Thank you for the link. I find it interest...Spuddy<br /><br />Thank you for the link. I find it interesting that the atheist tactic of scoring rhetorical points by distorting the definition of the term 'atheist' has such a long history.<br /><br />But that still is all that is going on. It is still the case that all but a small subculture of the english speakers read the term 'atheist' to mean 'one who holds that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is (almost) certainly false'.<br /><br />It is still the case that taking statements from people who use this definition, change the definition, and then criticize those statements based on the distorted interpretation, is objectionable.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25595022041426819962009-06-29T04:08:24.498-06:002009-06-29T04:08:24.498-06:00Of course, it is obvious that you determine the me...Of course, it is obvious that you determine the meaning of a term by looking how native speakers of a language use that term. And in my experience many people do take "atheism" to mean "strong atheism" -- it <i>is</i> false that at least one god exists.<br /><br />However, I don't think we can go as far as saying that snkscore's definition is absurd. Austin Cline at <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm" rel="nofollow">atheism.about.com</a> gives some examples of the original uses of "atheism" which definitely seem to line up with snkscore's definition.Matt Quailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13912577049843923431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4645563833539837132009-06-17T14:06:01.446-06:002009-06-17T14:06:01.446-06:00Kip said:
"Disagreed. Since you won't an...Kip said:<br /><br />"Disagreed. Since you won't answer the question, I have nothing else to say to you."<br /><br />Well Kip, since you insist I affirm a positive or negative belief to assess if I'm an atheist, I just wanted to thank you for proving the point that "lack of belief" is as meaningless as asking a rock or baby if they're an atheist.<br /><br />/neither has the capability to make a decision about a metaphysical philosophical position.<br /><br />And, choosing to ignore it isn't atheism either.<br /><br />Guess I have nothing further to say to you either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48142440038320882762009-06-17T13:45:18.788-06:002009-06-17T13:45:18.788-06:00Disagreed. Since you won't answer the questio...Disagreed. Since you won't answer the question, I have nothing else to say to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49886015754262056572009-06-17T13:33:00.706-06:002009-06-17T13:33:00.706-06:00Kip asked:
"I don't think Alonzo thinks a...Kip asked:<br /><i>"I don't think Alonzo thinks atheism is a belief system. And you didn't answer the question. I wonder why that is?"</i><br /><br />Because it's pointless?<br /><br />Concerning yourself one way or another does not affect the outcome but does interfere with any a non-theistic ethical discipline. And the argument is unprovable either way.<br /><br />From a non-theistic standpoint, if it were possible to prove that God exists, your beliefs and behavior would not change. <br /><br />Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.<br /><br />All the never ending debate does is interfere with your personal enlightenment. So non-theism and apatheism are not the same as atheism. Some aspects are similar, but not all.<br /><br />Some Buddhists are atheistic, some are theistic, some are literally "neither".<br /><br />Lack of belief is not atheism. Denial or disbelief is atheism.<br /><br />Atheism and theism are metaphysical philosophical positions.<br /><br />And when atheists dishonestly or irrationally and illogically extend their definition to include 'lack of belief', their arguments become irrational and illogical under prepositional logic (as noted in examples above by others) and propositional logic (citing equivalence where there really isn't any).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-45523658304110927822009-06-17T12:38:37.397-06:002009-06-17T12:38:37.397-06:00Anonymous said...
kip asked:
Is the propo...Anonymous said...<br /><br /> kip asked:<br /> Is the proposition, "At least one God exists" true or false?"<br /><br /> And doesn't understand he just affirmed the entire point behind Alonzo's blog post that atheism is a 'belief system';<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />I don't think Alonzo thinks atheism is a belief system. And you didn't answer the question. I wonder why that is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90569066638931167792009-06-17T12:14:30.931-06:002009-06-17T12:14:30.931-06:00The standard grammatical technique of "raisin...The standard grammatical technique of "raising" implies<br /><br />"I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.<br /><br />to<br /><br /> "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.<br /><br />I look at this operationally, an atheist is someone who thinks god is irrelevant or to expand, expand, an atheist is some who does not employ the premise "god exists" in any of their reasoning or actions. This can only apply to a person who could think it relevant. This leads to the same position on belief as Alonzo's. I think leaving the conversation over belief is granting too much to theists.<br /><br />For more see <a href="http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheism-and-ideology.html" rel="nofollow">Atheism and Ideology</a>Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19258211778558168612009-06-17T12:04:44.383-06:002009-06-17T12:04:44.383-06:00kip asked:
Is the proposition, "At least one ...kip asked:<br />Is the proposition, "At least one God exists" true or false?"<br /><br />And doesn't understand he just affirmed the entire point behind Alonzo's blog post that atheism is a 'belief system'; because it requires one to rationalize a philosophical position, and the entire preposition that atheism is simply "lack of belief" is not only illogical, but absurd.<br /><br />/The Buddhist stands at the sidelines saying "does it matter?" while Kip hopefully attains some enlightenment.<br /><br />atheism is a metaphysical philosophical position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44097720999466914502009-06-17T11:51:40.027-06:002009-06-17T11:51:40.027-06:00Anonymous, please answer this question:
Is the pr...Anonymous, please answer this question:<br /><br />Is the proposition, "At least one God exists" true or false?"<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64379228876565118782009-06-17T11:42:37.797-06:002009-06-17T11:42:37.797-06:00Kip said:
"Now, according to Alonzo, we ask y...Kip said:<br />"Now, according to Alonzo, we ask you this question: is the proposition, "At least one God exists" true or false?"<br /><br />That isn't a 'lack of belief'. Which to ascertain if I were truly an atheist or a theist.<br /><br />which isn't the same as non-theism, agnosticism or even apatheism.<br /><br />which really is the point that defining atheism as a 'lack of belief' is totally absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43347041324920606212009-06-17T10:16:13.454-06:002009-06-17T10:16:13.454-06:00Alonzo:
Are "atheist" & "theis...Alonzo:<br /><br />Are "atheist" & "theist" mutually exclusive, and jointly exhaustive? Or do you allow for "non-theist", and "agnostic", and "apatheist"?<br /><br />You say: "An <b>atheist</b> is someone who, if asked whether the proposition, "At least one God exists" is true or false, would confidently answer that it is <b>false</b>."<br /><br />I suppose you would say "A <b>theist</b> is someone who, if asked whether the proposition, "At least one God exists" is true or false, would confidently answer that it is <b>true</b>."<br /><br />How do you say an "agnostic" or a "non-theist" or an "apatheist" would answer the question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18193201771834341752009-06-17T10:10:34.165-06:002009-06-17T10:10:34.165-06:00Anonymous> "Kip - as a Buddhist who is non...Anonymous> "Kip - as a Buddhist who is non-theistic (not atheist, not theist), I want you to stop telling me what I am or think based on your decision to make all non-theism = atheism<br /><br />I'm not telling you what you are. You can call yourself whatever you want. I don't give a shit.<br /><br />Now, according to Alonzo, we ask you this question: is the proposition, "At least one God exists" true or false?<br /><br />I await your answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26951043738718005872009-06-17T09:55:48.565-06:002009-06-17T09:55:48.565-06:00Kip said: You obviously want "atheism" t...Kip said: You obviously want "atheism" to mean only "strong atheism". Most non-theist, non-strong-atheists to not use the term that way. There is "implicit atheism" and "explicit atheism" - "strong atheism" & "weak atheism" - "strong agnosticism" & "weak agnosticism". Personally, I find the labels to be a distraction from more important issues.<br /><br /><br />Kip - as a Buddhist who is non-theistic (not atheist, not theist), I want you to stop telling me what I am or think based on your decision to make all non-theism = atheism<br /><br />"Choosing to not think about, and not want involvement in an infinitely non-provable debate that only detracts from self-enlightenment, and not wanting to be defined in either camp" is also a form of non-theism. But it isn't atheism.<br /><br />I've had atheists tell me that if I'm not a theistic Buddhist, I'm an atheist. Total Rubbish.<br /><br />The entire definition to include "lack of belief" is absurd equivocation by atheists, is irrational, and fails prepositional and propositional logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53582698432069615732009-06-17T09:54:44.088-06:002009-06-17T09:54:44.088-06:00Alonzo> "No. You have a self-selected samp...Alonzo> "No. You have a self-selected sample. The vast majority of atheists, I would wager, has never even heard of this 'lacks a belief in God' claim let alone embrace it, and can still be observed using the term in a 'holds that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is almost certainly false' sense in their day-to-day conversations."<br /><br />I disagree. I've given you some proof from prominent atheist websites. Where is your proof?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70855046860939414302009-06-17T09:51:38.282-06:002009-06-17T09:51:38.282-06:00Eneasz: I agree, mostly. The problem is that I d...Eneasz: I agree, mostly. The problem is that I don't think there is a strong consensus regarding the word "agnostic".<br /><br />Regarding "God Belief", most of us are agnostic -- we aren't sure whether the statement "a god exists" is true or false. I think it's probably false, but am much less certain of that than I am with other propositions (such as "I exist"). So, maybe I'm 95% atheist or something?<br /><br />On another note, why do theists get to decide how atheists use the term that describes atheists? Since they are the majority? The fact is that different groups use the term differently. This is no different than other words that are used within sub-groups (e.g. "queer", "nigger").<br /><br />And finally, who cares? Use whatever word you want. I disagree (again) with Alonzo that this issue is significantly different than his not caring what definitions of moral terms people use. Is DU "moral relativism", or "moral subjectivism", or "moral objectivism"? Who cares... this is a distraction. Talk about the idea, and use whatever words you want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87344744494516244502009-06-17T09:41:16.577-06:002009-06-17T09:41:16.577-06:00Kip wrote: "I've heard definitions of &qu...Kip wrote: "I've heard definitions of "God" that I think makes that statement true, and other definitions that make it false. So, am I an atheist?"<br /><br />For purposes of this post I will define 2 to represent the diameter of a circle divided by its diameter.<br /><br />You have now seen a definition of 2 in which '2 > 3' is a true statement.<br /><br />Yet, I do not expect you to get confused the next time you balance your checkbook. You will be able to figure out by the context which definition of '2' is relevant in that situation.<br /><br />Similarly, you may have heard a variety of definitions of 'God', but I do not expect you to be confused when asked in the vast majority of decisions whether you hold that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is true or false what the speaker specifically means by that term - and to give an appropriate answer to that question.<br /><br />When this question is asked among English speakers you (and I) can usually expect that the speaker is asking about some sort of supernatural, omnipotent creator of the universe and can answer without confusion.<br /><br />There is no reason to start to pretend that the question generates confusion now.<br /><br />You also wrote: "1) I was refuting your claim: 'Competent English speakers do not recognize such a distinction. It is a trivial distinction introduced among a few atheists engaged in a private (and substantially separate) conversation that serves no general purpose.'"<br /><br />No. You have a self-selected sample. The vast majority of atheists, I would wager, has never even heard of this 'lacks a belief in God' claim let alone embrace it, and can still be observed using the term in a 'holds that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is almost certainly false' sense in their day-to-day conversations.<br /><br />It has become a fad among certain blog posters and activist atheists to use this 'lacks a belief in God' sense. However, they are not a representative sample of English speakers. Even the set of all atheists is not a representative sample of English speakers.<br /><br />And I can add, the title of this blog does NOT mean, "An ethicist who lacks a belief in God". It does not mean that today. It did not mean that when I wrote it, and it does not mean that to the vast majority of English speakers who might be shown the title the street.<br /><br />It means, "An ethicist who is confident that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is almost certainly false."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28635072046384961542009-06-17T09:27:50.979-06:002009-06-17T09:27:50.979-06:00If you ask someone to define "God" in an...If you ask someone to define "God" in any way they like, you can then say you are atheistic or theistic about that "God". But if you are simply using the word "God" the same way that almost everyone does in day-to-day usage, then I'm assuming you are an atheist.<br /><br />This is the problem the post is addressing. You CAN go out of your way to redefine things in any way you want for a certain conversation. But to then claim that this is what the word REALLY means, and everyone should adopt your new definition, is silly.<br /><br />And really, we already have a word that means "lacking a belief" in popular use - agnostic. Why try to conflate the two? (and yes, I know it means "without knowledge" and the claims you can be an agnostic atheist or thesit, etc etc. We're talking about usage tho, not etymology.)Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53451655989676435262009-06-17T07:37:22.940-06:002009-06-17T07:37:22.940-06:00Alonzo, you didn't respond to this:
Okay, how...Alonzo, you didn't respond to this:<br /><br />Okay, how about I try to answer your question:<br /><br />Alonzo: Is "At least one God exists" true or false?<br /><br />I've heard definitions of "God" that I think makes that statement true, and other definitions that make it false.<br /><br />So, am I an atheist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34543683979746274702009-06-17T07:33:49.551-06:002009-06-17T07:33:49.551-06:00Alonzo:
1) I was refuting your claim: "&quo...Alonzo:<br /><br />1) I was refuting your claim: ""Competent English speakers do not recognize such a distinction. It is a trivial distinction introduced among a <b>few atheists</b> engaged in a private (and substantially separate) conversation that serves no general purpose."<br /><br />That's false. Most atheists seem to use the term this way.<br /><br />2) I agree that most of the general population use the "strict atheism" definition of the term. Of course, most of them are theists, so that's to be expected.<br /><br />3) I really don't see very many "prominent atheists who commit the fallacy of taking the claims of others, twisting the meanings of terms to their own advantage, and using those distortions to criticize other." I guess there is a subset of atheists who do that, but not many from what I've seen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4335189330859698452009-06-17T05:29:00.075-06:002009-06-17T05:29:00.075-06:00Oh, and I want to add . . .
This definition of a...Oh, and I want to add . . . <br /><br />This definition of an 'atheist' as 'someone who would confidently assign the value of 'false' to the proposition 'at least one God exists' . . . .<br /><br />*waves hand*<br /><br />That's me. Over here. I fit that definition. I am an atheist.<br /><br />I am not going to hide behind contrivances such as 'lacking a belief in God'.<br /><br />That's the type of entity people are generally talking about when they use the term 'atheist', and I fit that description.<br /><br />So do . . . I would wager . . . the vast majority of those people who call themselves atheists and make the absurd claim that this means the absence of abelief in God. They, too, if they were honest with themselves, are people who confidently assign the value 'false' to the proposition 'at least one God exists'.<br /><br />And it is THIS quality - not some 'lack of a belief' - that qualifies them as atheists in the public mind as well.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69687456007559456892009-06-17T04:50:36.605-06:002009-06-17T04:50:36.605-06:00Robin Lionheart wrote:
"I don't use the ...Robin Lionheart wrote:<br /><br />"I don't use the term "atheist" to mean "something that has no belief in a god or gods", I use it to mean "someone that has no belief in a god or gods".<br /><br />This shift from "some thing" to "some one" is an entirely groundless contrivance.<br /><br />When I added the word "generally" to my definition of a good desire (a maleable desire that generally fulfills other desires), I am able to explain and justify the addition. It is justified on the grounds that desires are persistent entities and it is not possible to turn desires on and off in specific instances.<br /><br />And, I can explain why I added the word 'maleable' - because it is impractical to employ social forces to alter desires through praise and condemnation unless they are alterable.<br /><br />What justification can you give for limiting this definition to "someone" other than "something?"<br /><br />Furthermore, it is still easily and demonstrably false that this is what (almost) everybody else means when they use the term - that this is the definition of the term in public uses.<br /><br />As I said in the posting, we justify claims about what terms mean in public usage by showing that a particular theory best explains and predicts the way people generally use the term. If your definition were the definition of public usage, then people would commonly and without hesitatin apply the term 'atheist' to newborn infants and those people so mentally disabled that they cannot form a belief about God.<br /><br />That is simply not how the term is used. Straightforward observations about how people use the term contradict the predictions that this theory gives us . . . which means that it is time to abandon that theory in favor of another theory that best explains and predicts those observations.<br /><br />What is that better theory?<br /><br />An atheist is a person who would confidently state that the proposition 'At least one God exists' is false.<br /><br />Now we have a <i>reason</i> for the 'something versus someone' distinction. We can <i>explain</i> that prediction and <i>predict</i> that people will use the term in a way consistent with that definition. It is because it takes a certain minimum degree of mental competence to assign the value of 'almost certainly false' to the proposition 'at least one God exists'.<br /><br />Besides . . . your definition . . . simply puts atheists in the category of newborn infants and severely mentally disabled adults - those are the types of people who 'have no belief in a god or gods'.<br /><br />You may, if you want, invent your own private langauge in which you define terms however pleases you.<br /><br />However, it is a mistake - and it is morally objectionable - to insist that other people are also using your own private definition when they use the term 'atheist' and to criticize your statement because, when you switch out their definitions for those of your private language, their sentences make no sense.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65886836812980606312009-06-17T02:05:18.452-06:002009-06-17T02:05:18.452-06:00Competent English speakers do not use the term ...<i>Competent English speakers do not use the term 'atheist' to refer to cats, rocks, chairs, tomatoes, or any other thing incapable of having beliefs.</i><br /><br />I don't use the term "atheist" to mean "some<b>thing</b> that has no belief in a god or gods", I use it to mean "some<b>one</b> that has no belief in a god or gods".<br /><br />Your argument about inanimate objects is a red herring.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13113358989259865484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6242887689174486412009-06-16T23:14:46.316-06:002009-06-16T23:14:46.316-06:00Dean -
God has nothing to do with ethics.
This i...Dean -<br /><br /><i>God has nothing to do with ethics</i>.<br /><br />This is a point Alonzo makes very frequently.<br /><br /><i>If you believe that there is no god then you are correct, if you believe there is a god then you are also correct</i>.<br /><br />Is this solipsism? Or just insanity? At the very least you are using words in a way that no one else uses them, and you should specify which ones are being used in a non-standard way. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself. Or falling into the trap of <a href="http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/05/26/victoria-and-holmes/" rel="nofollow">The Loser's Compromise</a>Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.com