Ok, I’ve done some re-reading of the comments above and some introspection, because I really did want to figure out what went so wrong, and why, in my conversations with Satoruvash, particuarly considering I had interacted with other thoughtful folks as well and been able to concede various points and bring up some points of my own without bloodshed.

I finally figured it out, I think, and well, I still think it was mostly Satoruvah’s fault, but I don’t think he was out to attack me. I think he simply made a tactical flaw in a similar vein as my own flawed logic and preconceptions on the original blog post here. His misstep caught me at a time when my temper was a bit frayed, and I added more vitriol than was necessary to the whole situation.

So, what DID happen?

Comment #17.

Up until that point, things were civil, or so it seems to me. What happened in comment #17 though was that Satoruvash brought my post “Notes from the Battlefield” into this commentary. He saw a connection, both because of my mention of atheists and agnostics and because I made mention of the fact I would sometimes “get my ass kicked” in debates around here, and that such was to be expected given that I don’t hold a lock on all knowledge obviously.

To me, that post was a separate beast…something obviously informed by and partially prompted by this post on “Blinded Me With Science”…but it was meant to be something entirely different. It was meant to be an observation of new directions and new challenges I was expected as this blog moved forward.

Unfortunately, Satoruvash, in linking these two posts directly in his own debate with me here, suggested that I either saw atheists as my enemies and wasn’t willing or able to admit that…or that I was just really confused. He started attacking what he saw as logical holes in that other post. Now, I countered him and pointed out HIS logical holes, as it wasn’t appropriate to assign specific intentions to that post and to project onto me what he saw as my underlying motivations and feeling.

More than that, though, what I perceived was that he was going to look for anything that even smelled like a logical flaw in other posts and drag that here to buoy his arguments on this thread. That seemed to me like it was a mean-tempered and petty move (even if it wasn’t) and it suggested to me that Satoruvash was going to keep finding things elsewhere in this blog just to continue a discussion here that I felt was concluded.

As such, I reacted badly, and defensively, and perhaps a bit snottily in the end. Sadly, in reacting the way I did, I also provided more ammunition for Satoruvash to continue critiquing my thoughts and views and basically this whole commentary moved away from where it was supposed to be.

Instead of commentary about the original post, it quickly became an argument over informal discussion vs. rigid academic discourse. Over logic vs. spirit. And both of us were blaming the other of being petty or defensive in some way, shape or form.

Satoruvash is clearly very passionate about debate. In my mind, too passionate, but that’s just a matter of personal preference. I don’t like to argue or debate for extended periods. I don’t feel a need to subject my every word to a microscopic examination of its logic, how it might be perceived by others, etc. Satoruvash is a logic machine…I am a faith machine. I am capable of using logic and he is capable of using faith, but they are not our strengths.

Satoruvash reminds me of a relative in our extended family who is an English professor. He’s smart, witty and generaly likable. But he has an annoying habit of being a bit condescending to those who don’t quite measure up to his perception of what is an acceptable level of intellect, and he corrects people about their use of spoken English all the time. In other words, he can be nice to talk to and good to learn from, but he can also kill the joy in some conversations by turning it into something much more intense than it needs to be.

Did Satoruvash do that here? I’m not sure. And I don’t claim to know his full motivations and personality. But that’s how I took it. And I do know how I reacted, which may have been justifiable in some respects and reprehensible in others. I’ll let you readers judge that. I tend to be kind of partial toward myself, so I’m hardly a fair judge.

EDIT: You know, it isn’t quite right to say Satoruvash was more “at fault” in causing the downfall of things. Poor wording on my part, and let me correct that now before someone else corrects me. What I meant was that the beginning of the downward spin started with him, which is entirely different than assigning fault per se. And if I wasn’t clear above, his one major logical gaff to which I refer and which annoyed me so much was the set of three bullet points that said I must have meant atheists were my enemies and if I didn’t, I either (1) didn’t state my original point well, (2) my arguments to the contrary were poor, or (3) I actually do see atheists as my enemies and am saying otherwise to not be confrontational. Point #1 is a possibility, though I disagree with it. I disagree with point #2 strenuously since I think I argued quite well for my original point, and Point #3 is insulting because it strongly suggested I was lying. So, two out of the three possibilities really rubbed me the wrong way AND I think his logic for coming to only those three conclusions was extremely flawed. It’s the only glaring logical gaff I saw him commit, but it was the wrong gaff at the wrong time for me. Again, just wanted to clarify, since I’ve already been called to the carpet before for poor explanations and arguments in this whole affair.

Now, I’ve had precious little sleep and a lot of pressure these past few days, so maybe I WAS a jerk and maybe I’m being an ass. If so, please someone let me know. Someone other than Satoruvash, though, since it’s clear he and I are mixing about as well as water and magnesium right about now…

At a certain point, I feel like there is no more to discuss. I didn’t have any particular arguments against any of your logic in previous posts. But I begin to feel like you have moved beyond challenging me mentally and moved into the territory of nit-picking. I didn’t have anything more to discuss on your points, and yet you still returned to find new things to bring up AND to continue to say, “boy, your logic sure is flawed” and then go on to assign a potential motives to my actions as well…and not flattering motives, I must say: you suggest that I either have no logic and am making excuses for not being more rigorous or that I consider atheist visitors here to be enemies either subconsciously or that I consider them to be enemies and disingenously say otherwise.

THAT ceases to be a simple intellectual exercise and starts to feel like you just want to debate or argue with me for the sheer sake of it.

I think I have mentioned multiple times around here that I see this blog more as a dinner-table conversation. A shit-shooting session. Deep discussions can take place in such settings, but at the same time, this blog is NOT meant to be something so intellectually rigorous as you seem to want it to be.

I can accept having my views and even my logic challenged. But you seem fixated on pointing out logical flaws. The post you brought into this discussion that commented on how I am in a spiritual war was my musings on the overall work I am doing and the challenges I will face in doing it. But you had to drag it in here and make it out like I was slyly suggesting that atheists are my enemies. That post wasn’t making a point about anyone or anything but the challenges I face as this blog moves into a new territory of ever-more-diverse kinds of people coming here…atheist of course being probably the most opposed to my views for obvious reasons. We differ in belief about the importance of faith or the existence of a God.

It seems to be that you are trying to suggest, by hitting your points so hard and so often and with SUCH an attention to a very rigorous academic structure that you SEEM to want to force me into making my blog something that it isn’t. Discussion, yes. Disagreement, sure. But at some point, I want to move on to other subjects, and you don’t seem to want to respect that fact that pretty much everything that NEEDED to be said here already HAS been said. I’ve admitted to the fact my logic was strained in this post and I don’t need that point belabored by bringing other posts into this and you trying to tie them together to continue a discusssion that to my mind, is over…because you’re the only person who seems to want to continue it.

If I may make an analogy, if this site is my dinner-table discussion with folks, you have started to veer into the realm of the guest who in an effort to show just how smart he or she is just forgets when to be quiet and let people talk about something different. That may not be your intention, but it sure seems like it at this point.

Frankly, there are many blogs that talk about serious shit and the author either doesn’t respond to comments or makes only tiny snapshot comments here and there. I try to respond to every one of my commenters out of respect, but when a commenter like you wants to engage in an overblown discussion about a topic that I thought was dead and settled, it strains my time and my resources because them I have to have equally long postings to respond to everything you are saying AND to defend my own intentions and position.

The time I have spent responding to you is time I have NOT spent writing my next post. According to my own internal schedule, I am behind. In fact, I have now missed a day of posting. In that sense, Satan is using you quite nicely, because I have been moved, either through defensiveness or pride…or both…into engaging you even though it is clear that discussion with you has become a circular argument and a dance with no end in sight.

That dance may very well have ended now, but given that I have responded at such length and sabotaged my own plans because I’m too pigheaded to shut up, you may very well respond to this. Or you may not. In any case, I feel this topic is pretty much cooked…and I can’t imagine how much else can be milked out of it.

My end feeling: Satoruvash, you are welcome here and I DO welcome being challenged, because it does stimulate things. But at a certain point, I just want to move on. If you continue to post here, please read the cues. When I am winding down and saying, “good points, I have no issues to bring up”…that does NOT mean I am inviting you to come up with new points to argue…particularly when several other people have chimed in already.

*sigh* Now I probably look like someone who doesn’t want to hear any other opinions. And maybe I have overreacted. But I’m tired of hashing out a dead topic.

But just let it go, man. Stop trying to read so much into my words. I could probably read more into your words if I really wanted to and go on a rave against your comments, but I’ve kept it as simple, short and civil as I can.

You say that you welcome people who would question and challenge you. That is precisely what I have been doing. I got the impression that you were interested in discussions with individuals of differing perspectives from yours. You suggest my character is beginning to get tarnished by my actions. Given my intentions, the irony does not escape me.

Perhaps this is a major difference in our characters combined with the fact that you seem to have limited experience in debating, but I do not feel wounded if I lose points in a debate. It can be . . . exhilarating, as it forces me to sharpen my intellect even more.

You talk about my picking apart your points as if it were a bad thing. Good debate necessitates it. It would be an injustice to the spirit of debating if I saw holes and ignored them. In a debate–at least those I have debated who approached the experience in a similar way–the more someone counters your arguments, the more of a compliment it is. Unfortunately, I see this particular and crucial detail has been thoroughly missed. You mistake aggressive debate for personal attacks. You have no doubt observed that I like to be as direct as possible. If the point were to offend you and not to really debate or a combination of both, why suddenly alter my approach? If I thought you a fool, I would not mask it in a long post. I would say, ‘Deacon Blue, you are a bloody fool!’ and be done with it.

Debate is about mutual exchange. I would not partake in rigorously attacking your arguments and expect you not to do the same in return. If you did not, if all you said was “good one!” then there would be no point in stating anything. I would gain nothing from it but an ego boost. There are plenty of ways to get ego boosts that do not involve going to the trouble of typing up a detailed counter argument.

Anyway, it seems that I was mistaken. You are not interested in debate. What you prefer is someone making a point here, followed by an exchange of “good one!” and then moving on. That is not debate. That is a commentary.

You take things more personally than I do, Deacon Blue, and that has led to your erroneous perception of grievance. Given the disparity between our reactions, it will no doubt happen again in the future if I stay, and I really dislike unnecessary drama. Therefore, I will take my leave.

And my post “Notes from the Battlefield” should make it clear I welcome the presence of people who will question and challenge me, but now I feel like you’re picking at me just because. I work hard, I don’t particularly WANT to be doing a blog…but it is something I have felt called to do…I have precious few hours in the day to spread between my family, my blog and trying to get some playtime in on my poor computer games that have languished for complete lack of my attention. As far as I know, I’m a good writer because the people who pay me good money to write for them…and I have several clients…tell me I am. And my wife and son do too. Taken as a whole, I have to assume comments about my skills are relatively objective since most come from people who could simply hire someone else. But I don’t have the time necessary to make my posts here as polished as the work I do for hire.

Let me make this clear: People are not my enemies unless they are purposely out to do me wrong. Comments about getting my ass kicked here are largely meant to be humorous. If they weren’t, I’d hardly be welcoming people of such differing belief systems to post here and I’d hardly make a point of complimenting all of you on your skills and points.

Why can I not simply say you misunderstood my words and leave it at that? Must I print an updated post and mark my edits in red to satisfy you?

Since you are so willing to tell me that I am saying that people who disagree with me or challenge me are warriors of Satan…and give me your own example of why you assume my train of thought HAS to lead there (or likely leads there…or that I simply have inferior ability to communciate mysefl), let me give you my own example.

If Mr. Jones has it in for me and tells the police that I am molesting my child, my battle is not with the police. The police are not my enemy. They have been used and directed to harm me, but they are not my enemy. Mr. Jones and any henchmen he actively employs of questionable character would be my enemies. I don’t even necessarily place you in the role of the police, because I don’t (or didn’t before now) even harbor the slightest feeling that you were “out to get me.”

Satan has helped mold the world into a place where it is fine to marginalize the religious. It is becoming increasingly comfortable and easy to do so. That creates an environment where we look increasingly wacko. So, when people of fine character such as yourself (though your character is getting slightly tarnished the more attention you seem to give toward picking apart my posts) make good points based on belief systems they hold dear, that ISN’T an attack. But given the culture that has been created that is so secular and sooooo worldly, such posts can and do wound my efforts. It’s indirect. Also, anyone who loses points in any debate is gonna feel wounded.

I am a man who praises Jesus and has the word SHIT in the title of my blog. Accept the fact that I am a bit off the cuff, I have a sense of humor, even if it doesn’t always come through to all people who read my stuff, and move on.

You have made more than enough points, Satoruvash. I would like to be working on a new post but instead I am here, responding to comments from you that I certainly don’t see any need for.

I have given you credit for intelligence, insight and a firm grasp of logic. I would probably do for shit in the logic section of the LSAT; you would probably ace it.

But just let it go, man. Stop trying to read so much into my words. I could probably read more into your words if I really wanted to and go on a rave against your comments, but I’ve kept it as simple, short and civil as I can.

At this point, I feel like you are trying to make me look like a fool. Or you are trying to suggest that I am disingenuous.

Let. It. Go.

Mutual misunderstandings all around. I would never classify you as one of “Satan’s warriors” because it’s awfully difficult to be a warrior for someone (a) whom you don’t believe in and (b) who is a behind the scenes manipulator.

I would never classify myself as ‘Satan’s warrior’ because I do not believe Satan is real. But, that I do not classify myself as such does not mean that others reciprocate. I suggested this is how you would view me given the comments I have read from you. In ‘Notes from the battlefield,’ you state that you do not fight individuals. That you fight Satan. You also say that debate is not your forte, that you will get your ass kicked now and then as you did in this thread, and that Satan will get in some good blows. These are contradictions.

Let us suppose that I am a powerful being that is at war with you. I send a sentient robot after you to fight you. I do not tell the robot what to do specifically. Since it is an individual with particular skills, it will employ its own methods. That robot delivers some ‘good blows’ and you lose that round. Whilst ultimately you are at war with me, you cannot realistically look at that robot, get beaten by it, and all the while claim you are not at war with it. It is all a matter of hierarchy. Every AI I send after you will be at war with you. Each encounter will be one of many battles in a long war until you are once and for all defeated. If I am real, and I send that AI, regardless of it being aware that I have done so or that I exist, it still inadvertently fights for me.

As you can see, all of this is derived from the points you made. If there is any misunderstanding, it is not because my reasoning is bad given what you said. The most likely explanations are:

1) you did not state it well
2) your arguments to the contrary are poor
3) you do believe you are at war with individuals, but do not know it or do not want to admit it because it would sound confrontational.

If it happens to be number three, I can understand a reluctance to disclose such information. Most people do not respond well when you tell them you think you are at war with them. It automatically puts them on the defensive, and if the intent is to foster discussion of all types instead of fierce animosity, such an admission becomes a tactically inferior move.

Just a note, on a personal level, if number three applies to you, it has no significant effect on me–at least from a negative perspective. Whilst I may not share your belief in the existence of a God, I consider passionate dedication in the pursuit of goals and strong effort to practice what one stands for, to be especially admirable.

Either I am very tired and missing something obvious, or you think your context was clearer than it actually was.

Perhaps it is a combination of both. I did not literally state that religion is the easiest path to take for those who grew up in it. The context was clear, but not literal, which is obviously consistent with the nature of context in general. It was to be inferred by the comments I made. Let us examine my original quote:

“The only way most people can escape the cycle of religion is to discover a way to be comforted without it. This is not easy if the only way they know to obtain comfort is with religion. Most humans are inherently lazy. They will choose the easiest path.”

To make it easier, let us take religion out of it and replace it with alcohol addiction. I only use alcohol addiction because it works in the example. So, I say that the only way people can escape the ‘cycle of alcohol addiction’ is to discover a way to be comforted without it. Discovery takes time, effort, and dedication. Even after all of that, the pursuit does not guarantee you will find a replacement method of comfort that works for you. Given the odds, most people will choose to maintain an alcohol addiction because it offers comfort in the short term. It is easy because it is what they know and are good at, and not necessarily because it offers the most rewards of all available options.

Given this, it won’t matter if someone comes along telling them that they can live a different way. Humans are lazy and choose the easiest solution. To change anything in most people, they need to be thoroughly shaken to the point where they see no other option. This is universal. You can substitute religion with alcohol addiction and a multitude of other things benign or malignant, but human nature remains the same.

I find human nature fascinating. My comments here have been primarily from this perspective, with religion as secondary. It is how human nature applies to religion and not the reverse. The former is the source that drives us, and so, to understand why we do anything, it must begin there.

Actually, if you wish to understand Atheism Deacon Blue, this is the way to go about it. When you remove religion, what you have left is human nature—something we all share.