P"r"aying the percentages

[tonyrey]

You realize you already gave that response a few messages above ,right?

Of course! The truth bears repeating if it is ignored. As I have pointed out before, silence implies assent or impotent dissent…

 

[tonyrey]

Haha! Tony keeps conducting conversations with himself, because he gets no reply. Poor sucker… so pitiful and childish in his desire to be “recognized”. Soon he will “declare” that our lack of response indicates our “inability” to reply, and then he chalks up a “victory”.

Apart from breaking the forum rule of courtesy your failure to respond beautifully demonstrates your continued inability to refute my statements. Sarcasm and abuse are out of place on a website that is intended for **rational **discussion, reveal more about your character than the topic and merely bring atheists into disrepute…

 

[tonyrey]

Haha! Tony keeps conducting conversations with himself, because he gets no reply. Poor sucker… so pitiful and childish in his desire to be “recognized”. Soon he will “declare” that our lack of response indicates our “inability” to reply, and then he chalks up a “victory”.

What I realize is that Hee is incapable of refuting my statements but doesn’t want to admit it! Unfortunately for him the truth doesn’t go away if it is ignored. It bears repeating regardless of sarcasm and abuse. It is pitiful and childish to think another member of this forum is motivated by the desire to chalk up a victory rather than have a reasonable discussion about the merits and demerits of different points of view.

 

[Gorgias]

Obviously. What is “sufficient” varies from person to person. And it is insufficient for me.

Fair enough. It doesn’t imply that your standards for sufficiency are reasonable, though.

I only speak for myself.

Then why do you claim that others’ assertions of ‘received messages’ are not reasonable?

Last time I heard God has full control over the physical world. He can (allegedly) even perform “miracles”. Is he now “impotent” to keep a noise-free communication channel?

Because a noisy communication channel is the only inoculation you possess that keeps you from realizing that you’re fooling yourself. Without it, you’d be stuck with the dichotomy that you wish to impose – that you’re either a liar or an idiot.

You have two choices. You can declare me a liar, or an idiot. I have a think skin, so don’t worry about my feelings.

As I’ve already claimed, these aren’t the only two choices. Why is it that you wish the world to define you in terms of these two choices only?

That is obvious. I am the only one who can decide what is acceptable for me.

Interesting. And yet, you want to decide for others whether they’ve received a message?

Nonsense. I certainly claim that I am willing to consider a message when I see one.

You can claim it; but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

But only I can decide if there was a message at all.

No; you can only decide if there is a meaning to which you assent. There’s a difference there; can you see this?

I’m not claiming that you said that you received the message… just that you actually have received it, but are unwilling to admit to it. Big difference.

Uh-oh! This is what you said: “You admit that you’ve received the message, but that your interpretation of it is ‘unsupported mythology’.” Be careful. Your old words can bite you in the … donkey.

Amazing what taking quotes out of context can ‘prove’, isn’t it?

I said that you’d received the message, to which you accused me of telling you that you’d said you’d received it. Subsequently, you made a statement which made it clear that you had, in fact, received it, and therefore, I told you that, given your recent statement, you’d admitted that you received it. Be careful with that donkey… it might just be you.

God is supposed to have none.

That’s not true. A ‘zero-failure’ rate would mean that hell is empty. No one makes that claim.

Whatever God “wants” will happen. If it does not happen, he did not “want” it. Elementary syllogism my dear Watson.

Elementary… if you misunderstand God. He is not a puppet-master, forcing us to do what He wants. If it does not happen, it does not imply that God did not want. You’re imposing your own definitions on God, and your results are predictably skewed.

No one resists here. I am open and willing… or so I say. But again, maybe I am just a liar or insane… but in that case, why do you keep talking to me? I don’t deserve the honor.

Why? Because you’re neither a liar nor insane, despite your desire to have us label you as one or the other. I keep talking to you in the hopes that you realize that you’re simply mistaken (which, of course, is the third option that you seem unwilling to entertain)…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Then why do you claim that others’ assertions of ‘received messages’ are not reasonable?

Because they are either unable or unwilling to substantiate it.

Because a noisy communication channel is the only inoculation you possess that keeps you from realizing that you’re fooling yourself. Without it, you’d be stuck with the dichotomy that you wish to impose – that you’re either a liar or an idiot.

Sorry, to say that I am “fooling” myself is just a nice way of declaring me insane or a liar.

Interesting. And yet, you want to decide for others whether they’ve received a message?

Oh, I am not interested in making decisions for them. As far as I am concerned, they can believe that they received a “message”.

You can claim it; but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

Again, liar or insane? I do claim that I am open. As far as I am concerned I am quite capable of assessing my “openness” and quite willing to “admit” it.

No; you can only decide if there is a meaning to which you assent. There’s a difference there; can you see this?

One can only decipher a “meaning” if there is a message, which is recognized as such.

That’s not true. A ‘zero-failure’ rate would mean that hell is empty. No one makes that claim.

It has nothing to do with hell. It simply means that God is able to perform any act, which is not a logical contradiction. To create a noise-free communication channel entails no logical problems.

Elementary… if you misunderstand God. He is not a puppet-master, forcing us to do what He wants. If it does not happen, it does not imply that God did not want. You’re imposing your own definitions on God, and your results are predictably skewed.

God is not “beyond” the laws of logic. It is getting cumbersome to repeat it over and over, but having a clear, unmistakable message does not “force” anyone to do or not do anything. You are arguing against your own position. On one hand you wish to declare that I received a message, on the other hand you argue that a clear message would somehow “force” me to do something.

 

[Gorgias]

Because they are either unable or unwilling to substantiate it.

“… to my satisfaction.” (There… I finished your sentence for you. You’re welcome. ) You seem to be unwilling to admit that this, alone, is the standard to which you wish us to submit.

Sorry, to say that I am “fooling” myself is just a nice way of declaring me insane or a liar.

Not at all. You keep failing to recognize the third option: that you’re simply mistaken.

It has nothing to do with hell. It simply means that God is able to perform any act, which is not a logical contradiction. To create a noise-free communication channel entails no logical problems.

Ability to perform any act does not create an obligation to actualize any particular act. Your conflation of ‘ability’ with ‘obligation’ is what is leading you to your erroneous conclusion.

You are arguing against your own position. On one hand you wish to declare that I received a message, on the other hand you argue that a clear message would somehow “force” me to do something.

Two distinct assertions there. On one hand, you have received the message. You choose to interpret it in a particular way. On the other hand, you wish to be in receipt of a message that is so irrefutable that it leaves no room for belief. If God can make the rules of the game, He can make this part of the rules: one needs to not only receive the message, but believe in it – not in contradiction to logic, but in utilization of it (not as the sole determinant of truth, of course, but in service to the truth).

 

[Hee_Zen]

“… to my satisfaction.” (There… I finished your sentence for you. You’re welcome. ) You seem to be unwilling to admit that this, alone, is the standard to which you wish us to submit.

I already said this, many times. I do not see the need to repeat it every time. I am the sole arbiter of what is sufficient for me (just like you are the sole arbiter of what is sufficient for you).

Two distinct assertions there. On one hand, you have received the message. You choose to interpret it in a particular way.

Says you. But you STILL cannot speak for me.

On the other hand, you wish to be in receipt of a message that is so irrefutable that it leaves no room for belief.

**Yes. Absolutely. I do not care about the “theological virtue” of “faith”. **The only way to make an informed decision is to have the necessary information at hand. That does not “compel” or “force” anyone to act in any predetermined way, merely makes it possible to be able to consider all the relevant factors.

If God can make the rules of the game, He can make this part of the rules: one needs to not only receive the message, but believe in it – not in contradiction to logic, but in utilization of it (not as the sole determinant of truth, of course, but in service to the truth).

Logic and reason are the sole arbiters of true / false propositions. If God cares about me, then he is obliged to help me.

These requirements are not negotiable. If you have an argument within these constraints, let me heave them. Everything else has been “flogged” to death. I am not interested in revisiting them.

 

[Gorgias]

I already said this, many times. I do not see the need to repeat it every time. I am the sole arbiter of what is sufficient for me (just like you are the sole arbiter of what is sufficient for you).

Yes, but we’re not talking about what’s sufficient for you: you’re claiming that your standard is what is to be considered as sufficient for others who have received ‘the message’! In one breath, you claim we are all our own arbiters of truth; in another, you claim that your standard is what is applicable to others’ truth claims. It must be nice to be able to argue both sides of an argument…

Says you. But you STILL cannot speak for me.

Agreed. I’ll let you hold to your foolishness on your own.

**Yes. Absolutely. I do not care about the “theological virtue” of “faith”. **

This, from the person who claims to be open to receiving a message from God? You really can’t hold to both claims and still maintain that you’re being rational…

Logic and reason are the sole arbiters of true / false propositions. If God cares about me, then he is obliged to help me.

These requirements are not negotiable.

Hmm… imagine that: a created being telling his creator that he has non-negotiable requirements that oblige God to play the game on his terms. Some day, you’ll have to tell me how well that’s working for you. For the moment, I can see that it’s not.

 

[ynotzap]

Well, I can’t say that I ever experienced anything that can be identified as a manifestation. If there were demons cohabitating with us they apparently were not very active.

Sounds like you are describing knowledge from revelation.

Just an FYI as I think the above indicates this may not be apparent, but I had been a Christian and started from a position of being convinced of many of the propositions of Christianity.

Yep, I’ve never had anything that I can identify as being such an encounter.

I can give you my personal experience but I can not on this forum, so I will quote from St.Peter’s successor, Pope Paul VI… The encounter will not take place unless the Gospel is proclaimed by witness. NEVER THE LESS this is always insufficient because the finest witness will prove ineffective if not explained and justified and made EXPLICIT BY THE CLEAR UNEQUIVOCAL PROCLAMATION OF THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST BY WORD
There is no evangelization if the NAME, TEACHINGS, LIFE, PROMISES, THE KINGDOM AND THE MYSTERY OF JESUS , THE SON OF GOD ARE NOT PROCLAIMED" (taken from the encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi) I can not say it any better, except that it is true, and my experiences confirm it.

Many catholics were indoctrinated, and even processed, and the subtle idea crept in that because all of this was done the person was converted. The graces were there, but the response wasn’t, because we do not convert no matter what we do, this area is God’s alone. We don’t pass on the gift of Faith, but we can teach the truths of the Faith and witness pointing in the right direction, Jesus Christ

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yes, but we’re not talking about what’s sufficient for you: you’re claiming that your standard is what is to be considered as sufficient for others who have received ‘the message’!

Where and when did I claim that??? I explicitly said that people are different. What is sufficient for one is not sufficient for others. As a minimum courtesy you should not try to distort what I said.

This, from the person who claims to be open to receiving a message from God? You really can’t hold to both claims and still maintain that you’re being rational…

I am open to receive a real, unambiguous, direct message from God. Nothing problematic about that.

Hmm… imagine that: a created being telling his creator that he has non-negotiable requirements that oblige God to play the game on his terms. Some day, you’ll have to tell me how well that’s working for you. For the moment, I can see that it’s not.

You are truly delusional IF you think that you are my creator. This conversation is with **YOU **and **NOT **with God. You must play the game on my terms, if you wish to continue. If God will ever reveal himself to me, the “revelation game” is over, and the “conversation game” can begin. This conversation was supposed to be concerned with the “revelation game” and you are not doing well at all. You keep going back to already charted territory, you try to appeal to mythology and “faith”, as if they had any relevance. Yes, this is my “game”, the “revelation game”, and you need to conduct your side according to my rules. The only argument accepted is the cold, hard logic and reason. But I can promise, that facts and cold hard logic will be entertained, even if they would blow my current worldview to smithereens. As I said, take it, or leave it.

 

[KidCatholic1]

You are truly delusional IF you think that you are my creator. This conversation is with **YOU **and **NOT **with God. You must play the game on my terms, if you wish to continue. If God will ever reveal himself to me, the “revelation game” is over, and the “conversation game” can begin. This conversation was supposed to be concerned with the “revelation game” and you are not doing well at all. You keep going back to already charted territory, you try to appeal to mythology and “faith”, as if they had any relevance. Yes, this is my “game”, the “revelation game”, and you need to conduct your side according to my rules. The only argument accepted is the cold, hard logic and reason. But I can promise, that facts and cold hard logic will be entertained, even if they would blow my current worldview to smithereens. As I said, take it, or leave it.

I never read anywhere that he said he was your creator … at any rate, we all have religious opinions that seem unfeigned and unchanged.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Yes, but we’re not talking about what’s sufficient for you: you’re claiming that your standard is what is to be considered as sufficient for others who have received ‘the message’!

Where and when did I claim that??? … As a minimum courtesy you should not try to distort what I said.

Right here:

Hee_Zen:

First of all, the hundred recipients can only “claim” that they received a message. They have no evidence that there was a message at all. The point is that I did not see anything what I could consider a message. And the “others” cannot substantiate that they received a “message”. It is all “he said, she said”

Plainly, you said that others’ assertion of message receipt is insufficient for you, since they only ‘claim’ they received it. (As a minimum courtesy, you should not try to distort what you, yourself, have said. )

Hee_Zen:

Gorgias:

Hee_Zen:

If God cares about me, then he is obliged to help me.

These requirements are not negotiable.

Hmm… imagine that: a created being telling his creator that he has non-negotiable requirements that oblige God to play the game on his terms.
You are truly delusional IF you think that you are my creator. This conversation is with **YOU **and **NOT **with God.

I’m your creator? Perish the thought. I’m just the one pointing out the lack of logic and rationality in your arguments. You’re the one telling God “you’re obliged to help me, according to my terms, and this is a non-negotiable requirement.” Who’s delusional, again?

You must play the game on my terms, if you wish to continue.

Not surprising; if you’re willing to dictate the rules of the ‘game’ to God, it’s predictable that you’d think that you can dictate your terms to us, as well. If we disagree that you have that right with us, just imagine what God thinks of your demands to dictate terms to Him…

Yes, this is my “game”, the “revelation game”, and you need to conduct your side according to my rules. The only argument accepted is the cold, hard logic and reason. But I can promise, that facts and cold hard logic will be entertained, even if they would blow my current worldview to smithereens.

Fair enough. We left ‘your game’ when you responded with the tangent about “recognition of communication” to my comment that your prayer went off the rails when it moved from ‘prayer’ to ‘truth claim.’ We seem to continue to disagree that your ‘truth claim’ is false. Regardless, if we’re appealing to ‘cold hard logic’, then we’d have to agree that, since your prayer hinges on the claim you’ve made, it’s ‘value’ depends on the truth of your claim not to have noticed a communication attempt. We agree that you know what the Bible is, and what the claims about God’s revelation are, so it’s clear that you recognize that a communication attempt is out there, and that you’re in some way familiar with its contents. Therefore, your ‘prayer’ contains a falsehood.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Plainly, you said that others’ assertion of message receipt is insufficient for you, since they only ‘claim’ they received it. (As a minimum courtesy, you should not try to distort what you, yourself, have said. )

Yes, and then I reaffirmed it, when I explicitly said that everyone is the sole arbiter of what he finds good, compelling evidence. No contradiction there.

I’m your creator? Perish the thought. I’m just the one pointing out the lack of logic and rationality in your arguments. You’re the one telling God “you’re obliged to help me, according to my terms, and this is a non-negotiable requirement.” Who’s delusional, again?

Nope, I told YOU, that if you wish to continue to conduct this conversation with ME, then YOU must conform to my rules.

Of course I also said that IF God is supposed to be viewed as a loving, caring entity, THEN he would be under obligation to help when it is needed. The conversation is still between me and you, and not between me and God - no matter how much I would love to speak to God directly and get some answers from hem directly, not from some self-appointed people who “claim” to speak for God. So, I am sad to report, you are the delusional one.

Not surprising; if you’re willing to dictate the rules of the ‘game’ to God, it’s predictable that you’d think that you can dictate your terms to us, as well. If we disagree that you have that right with us, just imagine what God thinks of your demands to dictate terms to Him…

I already said and now I reaffirm it, that I would love to speak to God, but he is gun-shy and never returns my calls. There is no answering system either.

Fair enough. We left ‘your game’ when you responded with the tangent about “recognition of communication” to my comment that your prayer went off the rails when it moved from ‘prayer’ to ‘truth claim.’ We seem to continue to disagree that your ‘truth claim’ is false. Regardless, if we’re appealing to ‘cold hard logic’, then we’d have to agree that, since your prayer hinges on the claim you’ve made, it’s ‘value’ depends on the truth of your claim not to have noticed a communication attempt.

Emphasis mine. The “recognition of communication” is the crucial point. Mind you, I did not say that there was no communication attempt, I only said that “I did not see anything that I could interpret as a communication attempt”. And that is what you keep disputing, and as such you “claim” that you have knowledge about my internal thought processes and also you can discern if my claim is truthful or not. This is not just extremely foolish, but extremely arrogant. How dare you make claims about what I consider a “communication attempt”?

We agree that you know what the Bible is, and what the claims about God’s revelation are, so it’s clear that you recognize that a communication attempt is out there, and that you’re in some way familiar with its contents.

The first two parts of your proposition are true. I know about the bible, and I know that some people consider it a revelation from God. From that it does NOT follow that I recognize it as a communication attempt from God - only that some people believe it.

You are still under the delusion that I must recognize the bible as a valid communication from God. There is no supporting evidence for this claim. First, you should attempt to bring up some arguments which support your empty assertion that the bible is “really” the word of God. (That some people believe it is not an argument.) Then you should bring up some more arguments that somehow your arguments must be compelling for me.

Therefore, your ‘prayer’ contains a falsehood.

Only in your arrogant and foolish opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, and then I reaffirmed it, when I explicitly said that everyone is the sole arbiter of what he finds good, compelling evidence. No contradiction there.

So, if a person asserts that the Bible is the ‘message’ that he’s received from God, do you dispute his assertion, or do you allow him to be the “sole arbiter” of his received message?

Nope, I told YOU, that if you wish to continue to conduct this conversation with ME, then YOU must conform to my rules.

Yes… right after you informed us of all the conditions that you place on God. Really… do you think we’re not paying attention?

I already said and now I reaffirm it, that I would love to speak to God, but he is gun-shy and never returns my calls. There is no answering system either.

Mind you, I did not say that there was no communication attempt, I only said that “I did not see anything that I could interpret as a communication attempt”.

You could at least be consistent, you know. God never returns your calls… and yet, you’re affirming the possibility that He could have but that you’ve just not recognized it.

And that is what you keep disputing, and as such you “claim” that you have knowledge about my internal thought processes and also you can discern if my claim is truthful or not. How dare you make claims about what I consider a “communication attempt”?

Knowledge of your internal thought process? Of course not. I only know what you’ve written here. The ‘truth claim’ issue has nothing to do with your internal thought process, but rather, with the objective notion of whether God has attempted to communicate with humanity (and, as part of that communication attempt, with you). How dare I make claims about your thoughts on the matter? Easy – because, sad to say, it’s not all about you. You see, we are called to respond personally and individually to God’s self-revelation, but that self-revelation is made in ‘broadcast’ mode, to all, and in one communication attempt. You can make the claim all day long that you haven’t received the attempt, and that’s a valid assertion, but to claim that the attempt doesn’t exist, smacks of the arrogance of which you accuse me. (In short, I’m disputing your claim that, if you claim lack of receipt of the message, then that proves that a message attempt has not been made. That’s the height of foolishness, here.)

This is not just extremely foolish, but extremely arrogant.

Pot, meet kettle.

The first two parts of your proposition are true. I know about the bible, and I know that some people consider it a revelation from God. From that it does NOT follow that I recognize it as a communication attempt from God - only that some people believe it.

So, if a hundred people stop for a stop sign, but you blow right through it, would you assert that the ‘communication attempt’ that the stop sign manifests, does not exist? Or rather, simply that the ‘communication attempt’ exists, but that you refuse to recognize it? You can’t have it both ways.

You are still under the delusion that I must recognize the bible as a valid communication from God. There is no supporting evidence for this claim.

Now we’re really off the rails. Are you certain you want to go down that tangent?

Only in your arrogant and foolish opinion.

There’s been enough arrogance in this thread to go around; and a certain bit of delusion, too, to suggest that it’s only coming from me.

 

[KidCatholic1]

Only in your arrogant and foolish opinion.

Forgive me, it is neither an arrogant or foolish opinion: we are saying it does not make theological sense. For prayer to heal one of sin, it needs to be perfect (such as an Act of Perfect Contrition). An Act of Perfect Contrition is a prayer done out of true, unfeigned love for the Lord. Your prayer does not strike to me as a legitimately sorrowful prayer. If not done out of love, then what is it done out of? Selfishness? Prayer is about intention. Here’s a link about it, read it or not:
catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-i-make-an-act-of-contrition

 

[Hee_Zen]

Forgive me, it is neither an arrogant or foolish opinion: we are saying it does not make theological sense.

Theology is simply a collection of what certain people think and say about God. It has no relevance here.

For prayer to heal one of sin, it needs to be perfect (such as an Act of Perfect Contrition).

The prayer in the OP says nothing about “sin”. It simply explains that the offerer acted according ho his conscience.

An Act of Perfect Contrition is a prayer done out of true, unfeigned love for the Lord.

Which is simply impossible for an atheist.

Your prayer does not strike to me as a legitimately sorrowful prayer.

What the heck is “legitimately” sorrowful? Do you think that its is dishonest? That would be a serious accusation.

If not done out of love, then what is it done out of?

It is a logical explanation of the acts of the one who offers the prayer. Acting according to the available information is the best that one can do. If the information was insufficient, then the atheist is not responsible for the lack of information.

 

[Hee_Zen]

So, if a person asserts that the Bible is the ‘message’ that he’s received from God, do you dispute his assertion, or do you allow him to be the “sole arbiter” of his received message?

These are not mutually exclusive. What he says might be nonsense to me, but I still accept that he honestly believes what he said. And he is the sole arbiter of what he considers to be a valid message.

Knowledge of your internal thought process? Of course not. I only know what you’ve written here. The ‘truth claim’ issue has nothing to do with your internal thought process, but rather, with the objective notion of whether God has attempted to communicate with humanity (and, as part of that communication attempt, with you). How dare I make claims about your thoughts on the matter? Easy – because, sad to say, it’s not all about you.

Two contradictory sentences, a few lines apart. First: “Knowledge of your internal thought process? Of course not.” Second: "How dare I make claims about your thoughts on the matter? Easy – because… " So, which one will it be? Do you make claims about my thought process, or not?

You see, we are called to respond personally and individually to God’s self-revelation, but that self-revelation is made in ‘broadcast’ mode, to all, and in one communication attempt.

That “self-revelation” is only the opinion of some people. And I could not care less about such unsubstantiated assertions.

You can make the claim all day long that you haven’t received the attempt, and that’s a valid assertion, but to claim that the attempt doesn’t exist, smacks of the arrogance of which you accuse me.

I hope one of these days (weeks? months? years?) you will actually reply to what I actually said. One more time: “I did not say that there is no attempt”, I said that there is nothing “that I can recognize as an attempt”. Don’t you see the difference? And, yes, it is about me, not what other people think.

(In short, I’m disputing your claim that, if you claim lack of receipt of the message, then that proves that a message attempt has not been made.

How many times will you introduce the same straw-man? I lost count already. I did not claim that I “received a message from God”, I simply acknowledged that “I received a message from some people”. Sure, some people keep sending me messages, and I receive them, process them and reject them. Do those people “speak” for God?

So, if a hundred people stop for a stop sign, but you blow right through it, would you assert that the ‘communication attempt’ that the stop sign manifests, does not exist? Or rather, simply that the ‘communication attempt’ exists, but that you refuse to recognize it? You can’t have it both ways.

Incorrect analogy. A hundred catholics may say that there is a “stop” sign, a hundred protestants may claim that there is a “yield” sign, a hundred muslims say that there is “No parking here” sign… etc… a hundred atheists say that there is no sign at all, moreover there is no intersection there. I hop into my car to investigate it myself, and I see no crossing, and no sign. So I will just drive on happily. When will you realize that I am not interested in “bare assertions”?

Up you said: “we are called to respond personally and individually to God’s self-revelation”… I was not called in any way, shape or form that I can recognize as “being called”. A beautiful example of a “bare, unsubstantiated assertion”. I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but such assertions are dime a dozen.

 

[Gorgias]

Two contradictory sentences, a few lines apart. First: “Knowledge of your internal thought process? Of course not.” Second: "How dare I make claims about your thoughts on the matter? Easy – because… " So, which one will it be? Do you make claims about my thought process, or not?

Sigh… ‘thought process’ <> ‘your thoughts on the matter’. If you’re having a hard time parsing what I wrote, let me re-state: “How dare I make claims about what you’ve written on this matter?” There we go. All better?

I hope one of these days (weeks? months? years?) you will actually reply to what I actually said. One more time: “I did not say that there is no attempt”, I said that there is nothing “that I can recognize as an attempt”. Don’t you see the difference?

Yes, of course I do. “I don’t recognize an attempt” is a valid statement; it’s a statement about your ability and success at perception. However, you’ve also made the statement “There is no sender, there is no message.” That statement is unreasonable: it projects a recipient’s inability to interpret (or even receive) a message onto the sender, which is patently unreasonable.

When will you realize that I am not interested in “bare assertions”?

When you quit making them yourself, I guess…

I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but such assertions are dime a dozen.

It doesn’t hurt my feelings; yours are a dime a dozen, too…