jzs,
I can only go by what she wrote, and she made it pretty clear that "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any".
No, she made it clear that the philosophical position of materialism holds that there are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any, which is true. She did not, in any way, express 100% certainty that this philosophical position is true.
She did not, in any way, make it clear, or even imply, that she is 100% certain that it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What parts of "There are no" and "Nor can there" are you having trouble understanding?
None. What part of "she didn't claim to be 100% certain" are you having trouble understanding?
Very rarely do they mean that they 100% certain, and when they do,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is your assumption, sure. Please show evidence that "very rarely do they mean that"... etc. as you claim.
I'm not going to play this stupid game with you. You show evidence for your claim that they usually do mean 100% certainty. After all, you made that claim first.
It is directly obvious that you have made assumptions about what she thought, by virtue of the fact the fact that she did not explicitly state that she was 100% certain of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence of what she wrote, the is the conclusion I come to.
If you had actually read what she wrote, rather than taking one sentence out of context, you could not have reached that conclusion. I am amazed that you are still arguing about this. Not only did you clearly apply an unjustified interpretation to what she said,
but you had to take her statement out of context in order to do so!
You have just stated that I am trying to fidgit with the meaning of what she said. Are you 100% certain of this? Do you think that it is impossible that I may genuinely believe what I am saying? Are you 100% certain that I am actually trying to fidgit with meaning, and not in fact attempting to make what I think is a valid argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic.
No, it is not. It just proves that your assertion that she must have meant 100% certainty because she did not qualify her statement with a "probably", is not only false, but hypocritical.
Gee wiz. Looks to me like she was making a statement about the philosophical position of materialism, and not a direct statement of fact, as jzs has claimed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee wiz, you miss the point again.
She was an atheist. She said atheism is based on materialism. She was talking about the need to know what "we" (ie. atheists) base themselves upon. She then went on to discuss that there are those who deny that there are no supernatural forces and nor can there be any. So to summarize, she was an atheist, she discussed what atheism is based upon, it is based on the idea that there are no supernatural things nor can there be, therefore she, being an atheist, thought there are no supernatural things nor can there be. She did, afterall, call herself an atheist and lead American Atheists. You seriously think she allowed room for supernatural things? Uh huh...
I rest my case. You claimed that she stated it as a matter of fact, and that therefore she is implying 100% certainty. Not only is this reasoning flawed, but the premise is false. She did not state it as a matter of fact. You blatantly misrepresented her statement by taking it out of context and pretending she was saying something other than what she said, and now that you have been called on it, you are changing your entire argument.
I suppose one could claim that since she is an atheist, and says that atheism is based on this philosophical position, that she is implying that she is 100% certain that the philosophical position is true, but that is quite a stretch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going by what she directly said, not what I believe she may have intended.
If your claim is that by saying she is a materialist, she is claiming 100% certainty that materialism is true, then you are simply being ridiculous. But at this point, that is all you can claim.
In any event, it is pretty clear that jzs's argument is at best invalid, and at worst, intentionally dishonest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the facts, something you don't seem to care for. Yeah, maybe she meant 99%, 45%, or some other possible fraction, whatever. What we know is that she said there are no, nor can there be, supernatural things.
Amazing. You accuse me of not caring for the facts, and then
flat out lie. She did not say that there are no, nor can there be, supernatural things. She said that materialism holds that there are no, nor can there be, supernatural things.
There is no point continuing to misrepresent what she said in the hopes that no one will bother to check. Her quote is right there for everybody to see. All you accomplishing now is to remove any doubt that anybody may have had as to whether you misrepresentation was deliberate or not. It is clear now that it was.
This is pathetic. I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. I am not going to waste my time discussing things with liars.
Dr. Stupid
I'm going by what she directly said, not what I believe she may have intended.
Ho Ho Ho.