You Think Words On A Page Hurt Me?

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

It didn't look to me like he was defining atheism. It looked like he was describing different types of atheists (One type being someone who was once a theist but is no longer and the other type being someone who is an atheist because they haven't yet been taught to be a theist).

 

That is why it is relevant.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

Clay, I have warned you before about putting words in my mouth; my patience is very short, so I counsel you not to abuse what little I have.  I gave no definition in my statement; I merely contrasted my son's atheism with my own.  That said, neither my son, nor either of our beliefs have a goddamn thing to do with your dog, who, by the way, is an atheist.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

Clay, I have warned you before about putting words in my mouth; my patience is very short, so I counsel you not to abuse what little I have.  I gave no definition in my statement; I merely contrasted my son's atheism with my own.  That said, neither my son, nor either of our beliefs have a goddamn thing to do with your dog, who, by the way, is an atheist.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. So you can stop pretending to be a victim. I concluded based on your words that you and your son had different forms of atheism. His was a lack of belief. Yours was gained through acts of reasoning. Is this true or not?

[ExCBooster]

 

 

Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable.

 

 

argumentum ad populum.

 

Not to mention actually inaccurate. Zen Buddhism holds that all "gods" are illusion, anyway: if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Lots of interpretations of Hinduism and Buddhism, especially, work that way.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable.

 

 

argumentum ad populum.

 

Not to mention actually inaccurate. Zen Buddhism holds that all "gods" are illusion, anyway: if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. Lots of interpretations of Hinduism and Buddhism, especially, work that way.

 

The modern western recreation of Hinduism and Buddhism may pretend to be atheistic, but the roots of both are not. The people who practice real Hinduism and Buddhism believe deeply in spirits.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

Clay, I have warned you before about putting words in my mouth; my patience is very short, so I counsel you not to abuse what little I have.  I gave no definition in my statement; I merely contrasted my son's atheism with my own.  That said, neither my son, nor either of our beliefs have a goddamn thing to do with your dog, who, by the way, is an atheist.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. So you can stop pretending to be a victim. I concluded based on your words that you and your son had different forms of atheism. His was a lack of belief. Yours was gained through acts of reasoning. Is this true or not?

 

 

Clay, if you think I was pretending to be a victim, you misunderstand the term "victim".  You claimed I had set forth a definition; I did not.  I set forth a contrast, which you clearly understood, based on your latest post.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

Clay, I have warned you before about putting words in my mouth; my patience is very short, so I counsel you not to abuse what little I have.  I gave no definition in my statement; I merely contrasted my son's atheism with my own.  That said, neither my son, nor either of our beliefs have a goddamn thing to do with your dog, who, by the way, is an atheist.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. So you can stop pretending to be a victim. I concluded based on your words that you and your son had different forms of atheism. His was a lack of belief. Yours was gained through acts of reasoning. Is this true or not?

 

 

Clay, if you think I was pretending to be a victim, you misunderstand the term "victim".  You claimed I had set forth a definition; I did not.  I set forth a contrast, which you clearly understood, based on your latest post.

 

In order to propose a contrast you need to specify the properties of difference. These properties imply a definition.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Incidentally, Clay, you seem to be having the same problem on this thread as you are having on the thread started by Bhim addressing questions to you, which is that instead of addressing the original post, you try to pick fights with people in midstream.  Do not think this charade of yours is going unnoticed; and do not be surprised if I refuse to engage you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, is my son a real atheist?  Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine.  He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith.  He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is.

 

I guess my dog is an atheist too.

 

 

Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate.

 

Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist?

 

 

Clay, I have warned you before about putting words in my mouth; my patience is very short, so I counsel you not to abuse what little I have.  I gave no definition in my statement; I merely contrasted my son's atheism with my own.  That said, neither my son, nor either of our beliefs have a goddamn thing to do with your dog, who, by the way, is an atheist.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. So you can stop pretending to be a victim. I concluded based on your words that you and your son had different forms of atheism. His was a lack of belief. Yours was gained through acts of reasoning. Is this true or not?

 

 

Clay, if you think I was pretending to be a victim, you misunderstand the term "victim".  You claimed I had set forth a definition; I did not.  I set forth a contrast, which you clearly understood, based on your latest post.

 

In order to propose a contrast you need to specify the properties of difference. These properties imply a definition.

 

 

I find arguments of semantics to be among the weakest; I'm done with you for now, Clay.

[OrdinaryClay]

Incidentally, Clay, you seem to be having the same problem on this thread as you are having on the thread started by Bhim addressing questions to you, which is that instead of addressing the original post, you try to pick fights with people in midstream.  Do not think this charade of yours is going unnoticed; and do not be surprised if I refuse to engage you.

I'm not picking fights with anyone. I'm probing to see if people have anything coherent to back up their belief system. I observe many inconsistencies in the beliefs of anti-theists and atheists. I also find that these same people who like to proclaim the fallacies of Christianity are in no way prepared or able to defend what they do believe. Their only position is one of attacking Christian beliefs.

 

[Ravenstar]

It's not a belief system.. it's an un-belief.

 

There's nothing to defend.

[OrdinaryClay]

It's not a belief system.. it's an un-belief.

 

There's nothing to defend.

Here you said you had different reasons. Saying you had reasons is saying you developed unbelief using thoughts. This is more than simply unbelief. Like I said a dog has unbelief. The dog is in that state because he simply does not think about the subject. You actively thought about it and obtained an active state of not believing. The conclusions you reached with these thoughts are subject to critical review.

[kolaida]

i agree with alot of posts here without a set definition its kind of hard to accuse someone of the fallacy mentioned everyone has an opinion but opinions are not fact but it doesn't mean an opinion cant be true. what we believe often is based on our exposure but not always though. If i say i never seen a judge masturbate behind a podium while in a court proceeding i probably just didn't look it up or was.exposed to the news because this actually did happen. So just because i never seen something happen and assume that it cant doesn't mean its not actually, possible. whether its Athiest to Christian or vice versa. we cant read peoples hearts and minds verbatim thought to though. Can we provide solid empirical evidence in the way someone has felt about their particular conversion and then claim our assumption as the throne of truth? again its as everyone said definition is.key but people have different ones sooo where does this leave us?

 

So, I'm a bit confused as to what the question is.  It is still referring to the original question of some people claiming that some Christians who claimed to be atheists before are accused of lying about their prior atheism. As pointed out, most atheists actually consider it and give it thought before becoming atheist. If the person just didn't simply acknowledge a higher being one way or another, they would be better described as agnostic. However their testimonies are more powerful and books sell better if they describe themselves as atheist. 

 

Of course we can't know everyone's feelings and personal beliefs or journeys, but that doesn't mean we have to be suckers and accept everything at face value, either. If there is intuition that the person might be lying to you about Christian to atheist, atheist to Christian, whatever, there is no harm in asking some questions and digging a bit to see if the person is even aware of the basics of atheism (did they decide there was no god for themselves, were they simply angry at god and denying him out of anger, in which case they weren't atheist and even agnostic might be too generous, but  simply a rebellious and angry non-practicing Christian).  There is nothing wrong with calling someone out or asking them to explain further (unless you just like drawing people into fights or make too many assumptions before asking questions).  

 

 

but if someones definition of a duck was skewed then their talk like a duck walk like a duck may not be a duck. yes people do lie and this makes it all the harder to find truth in certain matters. but i do see your point 10 times 10 is 100 to us but it may not be to people that dont know math but just because they dont know math.doesn't mean the actual answer is changed. but opinions are different from.math and grey area makes it all cloudy

 

But isn't that the point. If their definition was skewed, then they are defining their experience incorrectly to others-- for example they believed atheism to be one thing, but upon further research, you discover what they actually held were agnostic beliefs, in which they weren't actually an atheist before but an agnostic.  Just because their definition is skewed and just because they believe they are being honest doesn't suddenly make their definition of atheism the correct one. 

[mymistake]

 

It's not a belief system.. it's an un-belief.

 

There's nothing to defend.

Here you said you had different reasons. Saying you had reasons is saying you developed unbelief using thoughts. This is more than simply unbelief. Like I said a dog has unbelief. The dog is in that state because he simply does not think about the subject. You actively thought about it and obtained an active state of not believing. The conclusions you reached with these thoughts are subject to critical review.

 

 

 

Oh I would love to talk about the evidence of hard atheism.  We know beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods are fiction created by humans.  But despite all your claims that anti-theists are unprepared to defend their views you will not debate with me.  I get the feeling that very soon now you will no longer debate with Ravenstar either.

[Justin]

 

Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable.

 

What does this prove exactly? Nearly all cultures believed in monsters and supernatural entities. Should we all believe in such things since most people who have existed did even though we know now in the modern era that there are no monsters?

 

Suppose you took a child, a newborn infant, and placed him or her in a space craft and launched them into space. For the sake of argument this child could grow up in this capsule, never knowing another human being existed. Lets say the child grew up to be 100 years old. Would you say that child, completely cut off from other humans and human society, would develop supernatural belief? Belief in a god? If so, wouldn't it be easy to see that this child just simply made it up, an attempt to explain why he or she is in this metal capsule moving through space? Couldn't you then understand how other religions sprung up on planet earth in similar manners?

 

Then there is feral children. Children who were so wild that they didn't even have the capacity to develop religion. Some of the ones who were "domesticated", so to speak, had to be taught how to be a human being and only then be able to learn religion. Some still never fully learned how to be a human and kept going back to their wild ways until they died. The point is, these humans, even though they were cut off from human society, did not have religion. Religion was never default with them.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable.

 

What does this prove exactly? Nearly all cultures believed in monsters and supernatural entities. Should we all believe in such things since most people who have existed did even though we know now in the modern era that there are no monsters?

 

Suppose you took a child, a newborn infant, and placed him or her in a space craft and launched them into space. For the sake of argument this child could grow up in this capsule, never knowing another human being existed. Lets say the child grew up to be 100 years old. Would you say that child, completely cut off from other humans and human society, would develop supernatural belief? Belief in a god? If so, wouldn't it be easy to see that this child just simply made it up, an attempt to explain why he or she is in this metal capsule moving through space? Couldn't you then understand how other religions sprung up on planet earth in similar manners?

 

Then there is feral children. Children who were so wild that they didn't even have the capacity to develop religion. Some of the ones who were "domesticated", so to speak, had to be taught how to be a human being and only then be able to learn religion. Some still never fully learned how to be a human and kept going back to their wild ways until they died. The point is, these humans, even though they were cut off from human society, did not have religion. Religion was never default with them.

 

It proves nothing. It provides evidence that the default position of the human mind is not atheism. Atheism is learned.

 

Your capsule thought experiment is meaningless because it is not possible.

 

The subject is belief in the supernatural not religion.Please provide evidence that feral children do not believe in any supernatural. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

[Justin]

 

It proves nothing. It provides evidence that the default position of the human mind is not atheism. Atheism is learned.

 

Your capsule thought experiment is meaningless because it is not possible.

 

The subject is belief in the supernatural not religion.Please provide evidence that feral children do not believe in any supernatural. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

 

You say it provides evidence that the default position of the mind is not atheism yet you then say it proves nothing and is meaningless. Which is it?

 

My story is impossible, i did say for the sake of argument after all. Is your imagination so weak that you cannot even attempt to grasp the point i was making? If you don't like space, how about you take a bunch of people, wipe every prior memory out of their mind and then put them on an island all to themselves. Basically they are starting anew with everything. Would a belief in a god/supernatural/religion come about? They are one in the same after all.

 

As for feral children, you tell me OC. A small child raised by dogs who runs about on all fours and growls and barks... Do you honestly think they have the thought capabilities to even comprehend the supernatural let alone form their on beliefs? Like i said, it's not until they are "domesticated" do they even start to act and think like a human being.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

It proves nothing. It provides evidence that the default position of the human mind is not atheism. Atheism is learned.

 

Your capsule thought experiment is meaningless because it is not possible.

 

The subject is belief in the supernatural not religion.Please provide evidence that feral children do not believe in any supernatural. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

 

You say it provides evidence that the default position of the mind is not atheism yet you then say it proves nothing and is meaningless. Which is it?

 

My story is impossible, i did say for the sake of argument after all. Is your imagination so weak that you cannot even attempt to grasp the point i was making? If you don't like space, how about you take a bunch of people, wipe every prior memory out of their mind and then put them on an island all to themselves. Basically they are starting anew with everything. Would a belief in a god/supernatural/religion come about? They are one in the same after all.

 

As for feral children, you tell me OC. A small child raised by dogs who runs about on all fours and growls and barks... Do you honestly think they have the thought capabilities to even comprehend the supernatural let alone form their on beliefs? Like i said, it's not until they are "domesticated" do they even start to act and think like a human being.

 

Evidence is not proof. Evidence provides the pieces that a rational mind uses to build a belief. Proofs are mathematical concepts which don't apply to probabilistic beliefs such as what we are talking about.

 

No I don't automatically take your word that feral children have no belief in the supernatural. Sorry, you hold the burden of evidence in this case.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

My story is impossible, i did say for the sake of argument after all. Is your imagination so weak that you cannot even attempt to grasp the point i was making? If you don't like space, how about you take a bunch of people, wipe every prior memory out of their mind and then put them on an island all to themselves. Basically they are starting anew with everything. Would a belief in a god/supernatural/religion come about? They are one in the same after all.

The evidence says yes it would since we have no examples of it happening any other way. Every case we have to draw upon in history shows they do establish a belief in the supernatural.

[Ravenstar]

No, what it comes down to is YOU can't imagine a world without the 'supernatural' and thus can not comprehend that yes, there are people who do not.. at all, instinctively believe in the supernatural. Children believe in a magical world (not necessarily supernatural) because before the age of 7 or 8 they don't have enough critical thinking ability or knowledge to understand cause and effect.

 

I'm agnostic on the vague generality of 'supernatural' because it's an undefined quantity. I can neither believe nor disbelieve in something which is ill-defined. I reserve judgement on that. Like I do on Leprechauns - My daughter has informed me she doesn't believe in anything that is 'outside' of the natural universe because she's never seen, heard or felt anything that would tell her otherwise.

 

I haven't seen an UFO either, COULD they be real? maybe... but until I see more evidence I take with a grain of salt all the anecdotal stories and blurry photos.

[Ravenstar]

 

It's not a belief system.. it's an un-belief.

 

There's nothing to defend.

Here you said you had different reasons. Saying you had reasons is saying you developed unbelief using thoughts. This is more than simply unbelief. Like I said a dog has unbelief. The dog is in that state because he simply does not think about the subject. You actively thought about it and obtained an active state of not believing. The conclusions you reached with these thoughts are subject to critical review.

 

Reason is how I got to atheism.. actually by studying the Bible, which take a little bit of cognitive ability, research and honest appraisal. My opinions, my thoughts, are NOT up for critical review unless they are infringing on another's rights. The veracity of my information, sure... but my conclusions are for me. Which is why I am here sharing, and not on a christian forum.

 

Please try to separate my atheism from my anti-theism. Atheism is my personal state, anti-theism is my social and political stance.

 

Atheism is not ignorance of the subject..nor is it oblivion. You can't be "A" anything without knowing what that thing is. Basic logic. A dog is a non-theist.. not an atheist. Cats however, know they are gods.

[slave2six]

 

My daughter and I are very similar, she never was a theist naturally and I don't think it ever occurred to her that there was 'more' (supernaturally speaking)...

Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable.

 

On the contrary, the evidence supports the position that the natural sate of man's mind is to believe in the supernatural.

 

 

I think it is more accurate to say that "the natural state of man's mind is to have answers" and that the "supernatural" is and always has been a convenient tool for filling in the gaps. Looking at the number of "supernatural" beliefs that have been discarded in the light of discovery, never to be believed again, it seems to me that the "supernatural" is and always will be easy prey to knowledge.

[Darkillusion]

 

I think atheists tend to say that a Christian was never a true atheist when some new extraordinary apologetic book comes out. Like that one book titled "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Or I know lee strobel has been accused of never really being an atheist. The story is always the same...they are an atheist, then they really decide to take a serious look at religion and become totally compelled by the evidence for Christianity, you know cuz there is just soooo much evidence. Jesus really got ahold of their heart! I personally don't consider that sort of person to have been an atheist...more like someone who never thought about religion or atheism or anything and just went about living their life. But that's up for debate. I think if someone had asked one of these authors, before their conversion, whether they believe in god, I think they would have said yea there is probably one, but I haven't given it much thought. Maybe we need another category of atheism, like an 'educated atheist', describing someone that's researched their position a rejected all other positions, versus a 'default atheist', someone who has never really thought about these things.

Why is there a difference? Well I think it's all in the definitions. What is the definition of a true Christian? Ask 10 random Christians and you'll get 10 different answers. Ask 10 different Christians each from different denominations and you will get radically different answers. Being a Christian is such a personal experience and every one has a different idea of what that means. So obviously if you were a Christian turned atheist, you didn't subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity and therefore were not a true Christian.

Atheism, on the other hand, has a set definition (although there are varying degrees, strong to weak). There isn't a ritual that an atheist has to follow to be considered an atheist. There isn't a worship style that proves they got it right. There isn't a tingly feeling, a book they have to read everyday, or a prayer they have to say in a certain way.

Well those are just my thoughts on why there might be this apparent double standard. I am personally not a fan of calling out the Scotsman fallacy on either parties. It's just such a generalization on such a complicated issue.

 

 

Wouldn't a set definition of varying degrees be roughly similar to 10 different answers from 10 different Christians?

Do you really think so? Atheism having different degrees...it's still pretty self explanatory-A lack of belief in god(s) with variance coming from either being open or closed to the idea of there actually being a god. It's pretty straightforward. That's all you need to join the club.

 

This is far different from trying to find out what makes someone a true Christian, because every Christian has a different idea of what that looks like. I was just trying to explain why it makes sense for an atheist to cry Scotsman fallacy when accused of never being a true Christian, while perhaps with the reverse, not so much.

 

As a side note, I think Christians like to pump up their "testimony" to make it seem like Jesus saved them from a real mess. That if "god could change my atheistic, rebellious heart, he can change anybody." I don't know, it always seemed very exaggerated to me, even when I was a christian. I tend to doubt most Christians' pre conversion stories unless I know the person. So when the church drags someone up on stage so they can talk about what a no good atheist they were, I just have a hard time believing that they were really an atheist, per the definition of atheism. I feel like there is competition in the Christian world to have the best testimony.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading."

 

whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios

The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply.

 

 

 

The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is.

 

The Bible is not true.

 

Therefore there are no 'True' Christians.

 

Then for you there are no true ex-Christians, no true panentheists, no true pagans, no true muslims, no true wiccans, no true hindus, no true buddhists, etc ...

 

 

Did I say that the Quran was not true?  Did I say that any of the holy texts of other religions besides Christianity were untrue?  No and No, Clay.

 

You declared how a True Christian should be defined and I responded by writing... "The Bible is not true".  The falsity of the Bible doesn't extend beyond it's covers to include anything else.

 

However, seeing as you are always right about everything, all of the time... you just can't be wrong about what you think I think, either.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Incidentally, Clay, you seem to be having the same problem on this thread as you are having on the thread started by Bhim addressing questions to you, which is that instead of addressing the original post, you try to pick fights with people in midstream.  Do not think this charade of yours is going unnoticed; and do not be surprised if I refuse to engage you.

I'm not picking fights with anyone. I'm probing to see if people have anything coherent to back up their belief system. I observe many inconsistencies in the beliefs of anti-theists and atheists. I also find that these same people who like to proclaim the fallacies of Christianity are in no way prepared or able to defend what they do believe. Their only position is one of attacking Christian beliefs.

 

 

The person who has decided beforehand, never to accept anything but that which they already hold to cannot change from what they are. Their blanket refusal to shift one inch on any issue renders them immune to anything that doesn't square with their rigidly-held beliefs.  Thus, even if a Library of Congress-full of evidence contradicting their beliefs were presented to them - they would deny, ignore and disbelieve it.

 

Now, in case Clay tries to get cute and say that this is exactly our position, I'd just like to point out the following.  In all the years and across all the forums I've seen him post in I've never, ever seen him accept anything from anyone (even his fellow Christians) that he didn't already hold to.  The flow has only ever been one way - the truth or the correct definition or the real evidence ALWAYS comes from him.  He is always right about everything he writes, all the time.  Therefore, anyone who doesn't agree with him MUST be wrong.  When someone knows they are always right about everything, why should there be any potential within them to change? 

 

So, even if the very people he claims were unable and unprepared to defend their beliefs, had done so... he simply would have rejected their correct definitions, their correct reading of scripture and their bona fide evidence as being false.  Not because it is false but because it conflicts with what he believes.

 

After all, if Clay's the sole source of truth, correctitude and proper evidence in this forum, why should he accept anything we can write?