…. that you are not very picky about who you call a skeptic?

Right. But amazingly someone took it to mean that I was interested in “policing that fifth decimal point of rationality”.

…. that you are not very picky about who you call a skeptic?

You still appear to be going off your initial misperception. Until you acknowledge that clear mistake (see #32) … well, you know.

Now, would you care to explain why I should be lectured about being precisely concerned with someone’s words when you’re more concerned with my “implications” than what I’ve actually said in comment 28?

Stephanie #16: “What have you done for skepticism, science and critical thinking to stand in judgment?”

This is the belief that you formed and tightly held: that I am attacking Pamela for not being skeptical enough.

Oedipus #17: “I am not standing in judgment of Dr. Gay”

Oedipus #18: “I would be fine with an astrologer who calls himself a skeptic”

Stephanie #19: “If, on the other hand, your only interest is in policing that fifth decimal point of rationality in others based on information you don’t even have, by all means, keep doing what you’re doing.”

Your belief persists, despite #17 and #18 which contradict it. Since I would be fine with an astrologer-skeptic, I am clearly not interested in policing the fifth decimal point of rationality. You’re not paying attention.

Oedipus #20: “I’m not speaking out against Pamela, nor have I done so in the past.”

Stephanie #21: “…Until then, learn a little humility.”

You’re still riffing off your belief, ignoring #17, #18, and #20 which contradict it.

When someone is that solidified in a position despite repeated evidence to the contrary, then it is time to stop the conversation. I should have recognized that instead of trying to shock you into correction. You deserved my abuse for persisting to vilify me, but that doesn’t mean I should have applied it.

Now you’ve simply asserted it as the only reasonable interpretation.

Stephanie, we can’t presume to know what people believe apart from what they say. We have to take them at their word. Nobody has a right to interpret what someone else really believes. “Christian” means something momentously distinct from deism or deism-like beliefs. Pamela says she is a Christian. Therefore she is a Christian, not a kind of deist. That is the only reasonable interpretation.

You’ve responded by saying that I don’t really know what her beliefs are, and that you know better than I do. That’s irrelevant because nobody really knows except for Pamela. Her beliefs are what she says they are. The idea that I should accept your interpretation of her beliefs is absurd. If Pamela wants to say she is more like a way, way out deist then let her say it.

The important point is that people should accept Pamela as she is. The people who don’t accept Pamela should fuck off. We don’t care about them. But by arguing for Pamela’s deist-like tendencies, you are implying that if Pamela The Christian is unpalatable then there is the option of accepting Pamela The Person Who Claims To Be a Christian But Is More Like a Deist. I find the latter patronizing, and it only serves to appease the assholes.

Thanks for retracting the assertion of lying.

I contend that Pamela calls herself Christian for a reason, and it’s not for the social perks, the symbolic language, or other peripheral reasons. I also contend that it’s being disrespectful of her to suggest otherwise. That is where the publicly available evidence leads me. If Pamela wants to come out and say that I’m wrong then I would welcome the rebuke.

Stephanie, I apologize for using the term “lying”. I just couldn’t believe you went on to attack me again even after I said that I wasn’t speaking out against Pamela, and even after I said that I would be accepting of even an astrologer-skeptic. Your comments indicated that you didn’t care to absorb this point. I resolved to be “more direct” in order to get your attention, but that was a poor way to do it. It’s obviously possible for you to say something I consider clearly wrong without devious intention.

I’m sorry for that. Conversation without empathy is masturbation. You mentioned humility–this is what I’ve said on that topic:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do….I contend that we are both deluded. I just have one less delusion than you. And I could be deluded about that.

Ergo, my humility is better than your humility. (The previous sentence is satire.)

Is “deist” a perfect word? Nope, but all the perfect words are taken. I’m still using it, even with the “way, way” modifier, because Pamela is more than capable of describing what she understands about this world without reference to any deity. That she chooses to describe what she doesn’t understand but believes nonetheless about something beyond this world using the language of Christianity doesn’t change that at all. That she understands and can explain the difference between the two makes her one of the better skeptics I’ve met.

And knock off the bullshit about Pamela needing to be a deist to be defended. If she spent an hour every day (and six on Sundays) swaying on her knees, lighting candles in an incense-filled church, she’d still be Pamela. She’d still be doing the work she’s doing and still be one of the most lovable people I know. That has nothing to do with whether you’re wrong.

It is fair to state that a Christian that does not believe that Jesus did not exist is not really a Christian

lolwut?