Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1820614-20150731024240/@comment-61022-20150902175600

Seekquaze1 wrote: I came here merely trying to better understand of the mindest of certain characters. I was not trying to convert anyone, create an obfuscation, or anything else.

I think I explained the mindset of the characters pretty succinctly in that regard. I surmised ulterior motives for your line of inquiry because you keep on going around in circles with your way of thinking. Also the overall tone comes across less as an attempt to understand characterization for the sake of fiction, but to trying to legitimize a personal ideology based on a personal disagreement disagreement with said characterizations.

As for "converting people", you seem to have a problem interpreting my phrasing. I didn't make accusations that you were seeking to convert anyone. The phrase I used was "preach to the converted", meaning you were seeking validation for your point of view. And yes, I have taken time to read all of your posts. You were the one who complained about my interest that is why you surprise me with you lengthy response.

I think the fault here is interpreting my replies as complaints. I'm not complaining about your responses, I am pointing out inherent flaws in your discussion.

And your replies are dismissive, just because you read my comments in their entirety doesn't make you seem any less dismissive. Your apparent surprise about the counter points and length goes back to what I was saying about your need for validation. If you were looking for actual debate on the subject, my opposing view, and the length thereof, including any instances where I've pointed out a flaw in your logic on the subject should not come as a surprise, and you certainly would not be viewing them as complaints.

And for all your talk of an "organic point of view" you are the one who claimed to know wholly what all atheists think and claim to be able to simplify all religions down to one convenient story when neither are quite as rigid as you make them out to be.

And you wonder why I could come to conclude that you are obfuscating the real intent of your conversation.

Again, you talk from a lack of understanding of the terminology. At the root of everything we've discussed, we have been

Seekquaze1 wrote: And for your complaint about my lack of citing sources you are no better yourself.

Again, not a complaint, merely observation. As for citing sources, if you want one the dictionary has a very good one that very much falls in line to what I've explained to you in more detail here. Basically the root of the disagreement is the definitions of and the differences between monotheism and atheism. Which based on the definitions of those terms, I think I've explained succinctly:

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monotheism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Versus yours, which have basically amount to hearsay. (In that it amounts to people you've claimed to have spoken with on the internet)

Seekquaze1 wrote: I was not presenting anything as absolute fact. You were and I was presenting contrary opinions I had encountered in real life.

No, I think it's more a case of you splitting hairs versus my the position based on the clearly defined definition of the word.

Seekquaze1 wrote: Was my original post too verbose?

It wasn't too verbose, it was contrary to what you later claimed was your motivation for posing the question. Initially you were asking why the characters thought this way, and later you backpedaled and stated you were wondering what the writers intended when they wrote the narrative. Your reply wasn't too wordy, the premise to your query is inconsistent. When you didn't get an agreeing opinion, you changed the premise of your question to try and guide the conversation to your way of thinking.

So again, I maintain it appears you are obfuscate your real intention in posing the question. Regardless of your motivation, it's clear you seek validation for your point of view.

Seekquaze1 wrote: Possibly, I was trying to explain the reasoning behind my question and was wondering if there was a reason beyond "artistic license." Some writers are good enough with characterization that the reader can understand the thought process behind it. Others writers scribble down whatever is convenient for the story. Sometimes I do not get the thought process and someone else does which was the reason for my original post.

Again, suggests an obfuscation of the real reason you're inquiring about it.

If there is really that much of a concern as to the writers motivations, actually communicating with said writers is fairly easy. The vast majority of writers are on some social media platform and are very open to answering questions written by fans. If such was your concern I would think that if it was such a legitimate query you would have written to them directly.

Supporting my view point that this is merely a need for personal validation. As I would suppose that the idea of you actually approaching a writer and getting a response that doesn't validate your view point is an absolute lynch pin to said idea. The idea of getting an opposing view point from the source bothers you on some level and therefor you've instead posted on a fan site seeking to find like minded individuals to provide validation to said standpoints.

Seekquaze1 wrote: I didn't respond in detail because from the very start you come off as having the type of superior attitude I find impossible to debate with. It is a waste of time I have engaged with others in the past on other subjects and gotten nowhere.

As I said, dismissive in the face of an opposing opinion. You find it impossible to deal with my responses because, as I've said, you are seeking validation.

This last paragraph speaks very plainly that my observations are fairly accurate. You seek validation of your view points, but when you've weighed the cost-benefit of continued discussion and find that your point of view isn't being mirrored, you dismiss the conversation as a waste of time and make statements to convince yourself that there is a right and wrong to a discussion. By concluding that I have a "superior attitude", you're justifying to yourself that I am incorrect in my way of thinking, and therefor in the wrong.

As is evident by your constant application of negative terminology in opining on my responses. (example: they are not discourse, but "complaints", instead of challenging the premise of your discussion I am displaying a "superior attitude") The fact that you believe you have "gotten nowhere" speaks volumes about your intent in this conversation. It's not a desire to discuss differences of opinion, but to have your own point of view agreed upon.

If the discussion wasn't a waste of time, you would not have posed the question. Further, it's only becoming a "waste of time" because not a single person has agreed with your point of view. Because I'm the one giving you substantial reasons why your point of view is flawed, you have reduced conversation to pejorative statements to try and discredit my opinion by making veiled comments about my character. You'll not that not once have I questioned your character throughout this entire discourse, yet at every opportunity you've made a point to use a negative to describe how I choose to respond to your queries.

But if that's not enough for you and you're going to argue against the fact you're not seeking validation, the fact that you're the only person who has given Kudos to your own responses is a very telling statement to the contrary.