180 Proof
695 — 180 Proof

The question now being debated here is whether it makes more sense for the word "atheist" to be used the way some atheists want it to be used...or to be used in the way I, and many other agnostics, prefer (which, in our opinion, makes a lot more sense.)

The way atheists want to use it FORCES people who do not want to use it as an identifier...and people for whom it should NOT be used...to have it applied to them.

The way we am suggesting....that problem does not apply.

I, most assuredly, am NOT AN ATHEIST. I am an agnostic...BUT NOT AN ATHEIST, even though some of the debating atheists in this forum seem to insist I am. The babies in this world ARE NOT atheists, even though some of the debating atheists in this forum seem to insist they are.

Albert Einstein insisted he was an agnostic...NOT AN ATHEIST.

Stephen Hawking insisted he was an agnostic, but vehemently insisted that he was NOT AN ATHEIST.

Carl Sagan insisted he was an agnostic...but INSISTED he was not an atheist.

Would you take that same demeaning tone with them?

The atheist's case is made of mush...especially as you present it, 180.

Apparently you call yourself an atheist. My guess is that YOU "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Are you saying I am wrong about that?

Pfhorrest
1.2k
Look, Frank, nobody is saying that you have to introduce yourself as an atheist. You're clearly also an agnostic; I'm getting the impression of a hard agnostic, who thinks knowledge about God is impossible. So calling yourself an agnostic is fine.

But if other people mean by "atheist" someone who doesn't believe God exists (not "who believes God doesn't exist"), and your view falls under that umbrella, then you're also an atheist in that sense of the word. You don't have to identify yourself as one, but you don't get to tell other people (who don't believe God exists, but also don't believe God doesn't exist -- like you) that they aren't really atheists; and if they're really atheists, and you believe the same thing as them, then you are too, in that sense of the word, even if you don't want to call yourself that. — Pfhorrest

I appreciate your sentiments, Phorrest...and I understand why you feel that way.

Mostly this is NOT a problem. But on the Internet it does become one.

I can tell you this...I have MANY friends in my non-cyber life who are atheists. They make no bones about it...and clearly and publicly declare themselves to be ATHEISTS. (We do not hide this stuff here in New Jersey.)

Anyway, I have never had one of them insist that I am an atheist also by virtue of the fact that I do not believe any gods exist. They know I identify as an agnostic...and they accept that. Never once outside of the Internet have I ever had an atheist insist that ANYONE who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist.

In fact, on those occasions where I have spoken with atheistic friends on the issue...they have been skeptical of my mention of people who do. "C'mon," they say, "if you say you are NOT an atheist, but an agnostid, why would anyone challenge that?" And when I tell them that some people are so wedded to that notion that they insist that "some say that babies and toddlers are all atheists" they just shut the conversation off...usually with a "well, you are just talking to assholes then,"

So...I am discussing it...here on the Internet where it happens. I thought I was doing so in a reasonable way...maybe with a jab here and there, but not being nasty or insulting.

Okay...glad to know that.

Not sure what you are getting at.

You seem to be positing axioms that have no basis.

How do you arrive at "everything is true?"

How do you arrive at "everything is false?"

180 Proof
687
I can defend everything I have written.
— Frank Apisa
Anytime now would be good a time to start. — 180 Proof

I have been offering good, compelling arguments right along. You apparently refuse to acknowledge that...for some reason. I am sure it is a good reason for you...something that makes you feel better about yourself.

In any case, a rehashing for the slow learner group:

A large part of why I do not accept the atheistic mantra of “You are an atheist if you lack a ‘belief’ (in) God" is because it is a contrived statement. Essentially, it is saying that everyone is forced, by lexicographers and convention to be defined as an atheist if that is the situation. You are not allowed to choose "agnostic" and live with that alone...convention, alone, DEMANDS that you are an atheist.

C’mon. Most of the atheists with whom I am dealing just in this thread have more spine than that! Well, maybe not you, Proof. But most.

The reason most (probably ALL) of those who CHOOSE to use the word “atheist” as a descriptor…is that he/she “believes” that there are no gods…or he/she supposes that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I DON’T.

So why does anyone think it is reasonable to insist that those of us who do not “believe” that there are no gods…AND WHO DO NOT think it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one…should have the descriptor “atheist” imposed upon us?

Why are there some atheists who insist we are forced to accept it?

Why are there some atheist who insist that all babies are born atheists…rather than that all babies are born neither theistic, atheistic nor agnostic?

Why does anyone suppose the former is a more logical way to deal with the word…than the latter?

Why do those insistent atheists not just allow people who want to identify as atheists…do so; those who want to identify as agnostics…do so; and those who do not want a designation at all...do so...

… without the imposition of the “atheist” designation?

Why?

Wow. Besides being a psychologist...you are a referee?

Who ever woulda thunk it?

ep3265
53
↪Frank Apisa Absolutely not, but it is telling of a cognitive dissonant mindset, which you may be able to jump on before it's too late. — ep3265

Oh, you are a psychologist...working from afar.

You're not going to charge me, right?

180 Proof
685
↪David Mo Your muddle makes you sound like one of Frankie's fraught relations trying to brown-nose your way (back) into an inheritance ... Please stop. You're spin makes it even more clear that he can't defend his own muddle. :meh: — 180 Proof

I can defend everything I have written. And with intelligent people, there usually is no need to do so. They get what I am saying...and understand it is reasonable.

Yeah, David...

...why can't you realize that people like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were just ignorant people who just did not understand what is important in academics.

Here in the forum you have got world-class geniuses informing you of what those ignorant pissants were not able to grasp.

David Mo
162
↪180 Proof ↪DingoJones ↪Artemis
The problem we are discussing is not whether Einstein or Sagan were pantheists but how they used the concepts of atheism and agnosticism.

Frank gave a good sample of scientists who considered atheism as denial that God exists and agnosticism as abstaining from judgment. You have provided only a partial quote from Wiki. It is clear where the scales are tipped. — David Mo

Thank you, David.

It is easy for people like Dingo to suggest I am stupid because of my position on this issue. I suspect it is much more difficult to argue that people like Einstein and Sagan were stupid because they viewed the descriptors "atheist" and "agnostic" the way I am arguing here...rather than the way people like Dingo and Artemis are.

All three WERE agnostics...and two of the three were livid when called atheists.

VagabondSpectre
1.7k
Yes…one characteristic that ALL atheists share in common…is A LACK OF “BELIEF” THAT ANY GODS EXIST. ALL atheists lack a “belief” (in) god…but not everyone lacking that “belief” is an atheist.
— Frank Apisa

Why not?

If lacking belief in gods is the only necessary and sufficient quality to be considered an atheist, how can someone lack belief in god(s) and NOT be an atheist? — VagabondSpectre

Very easy.

All one has to do is to tell the truth...as I am doing...by just saying, "I am NOT an atheist."

Yeah...just ignore the gratuitous usage based definition that atheists have contrived...and refuse to be labelled that way.

There is no reason in the world why "a lack of 'belief' in gods"should be considered "the only necessary and sufficient quality" to be considered an atheist. In fact, it isn't!

Two other "qualities" come easily to my mind; two "qualities" that EVERY person I have ever known or know of...appears to possess:

One...EVERY person I have ever known or know of who chooses to use the descriptor "atheist" uses it because that person WANTS TO. They choose to uses it. It is their choice to use it.

Two, EVERY person I have ever known or know of chooses to do so because he/she either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does.

I do not meet either of those other necessities. I do NOT choose to use it or have it used of me...and I do NOT "believe" there are no gods nor that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I am not an atheist.

Yeah...

...but the one that really drives me nuts is, "Everybody is a sinner!"

Not completely sure why, but this thread reminds me of an old Catholic joke.

Jesus intervenes with a crowd about to stone a woman found to have committed adultery. He looks around and says, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

All was quiet for a moment...then suddenly a rock flies through the air and hits the woman smack on her head.

Jesus frowns and admonishes, "Mother!!!"

god must be atheist
1.7k
If everyone is an agnost... (which I support... but then why create a word that only applies to humans but does not delineate any sub-group... a human condition that is pervasive across the whole species?)... then everyone is also an atheist. — god must be atheist

You'd have to as Thomas Huxley that.

But for me...it allows a person who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist...to differentiate him/herself from others of that same sentiment, but who "believe" that no gods exist or who "believe" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

No Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. believe in the deity Zeus or Jupiter etc. Not believing in gods is atheism. Ergo, all Christians, Jews, Muslims, are atheists.

They are simply people who do not "believe" those gods exist. Atheist is a descriptor used by people who "believe" no gods exist...or who "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

Absolutely nobody believes in all the believed gods. We are all atheists.

One of those points that I would rather not speak for everyone, but it sounds correct. However, it does not change what I have said.

(I did not come up with this. It's common knowledge.)

It is a common assumption...and one that I make also.

Positioning on the question is broad...running from "There is a God" to "There are no gods." There are nuances and subtleties that come into play.
— Frank Apisa

"Atheist" and "theist" are categories. That they gloss over subtleties is kinda the point. Saying someone falls into a category is not the same as saying their position is the same as everyone else's. — Echarmion

I agree. But that does not contradict anything I wrote.

Echarmion
1k
By the way, the notion that non-theist is the same as "atheist" is so self-serving and gratuitous to the atheistic perspective...I cringe at having to dispute it. I am, most assuredly, a non-theist. BUT I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
— Frank Apisa

What's the important difference? — Echarmion

Non-theist describes anyone who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist.

Atheist, no matter how much people who use the term as a descriptor, are people who also "'believe' that there are no gods" or who "'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Pfhorrest
1.1k
EVERYONE is an agnostic.
— Frank Apisa

Now who's telling people what they really are?

Someone who thinks they know that God does or doesn't exist is not an agnostic. Hard agnostics (who think knowledge about God is impossible) may think all such claims to knowledge are wrong, but nevertheless it's the claim to knowledge or lack thereof that makes someone agnostic or not. — Pfhorrest

EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC.

NOBODY KNOWS IF ANY GODS EXIST OR NOT.

SOME PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT...SOME PEOPLE DO NOT.

BUT EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC.

David Mo
156
↪Pfhorrest
I want to talk about knowledge (of God). The only way to do so is through the propositions that enunciate it: I affirm or I deny. Or I abstain. Do you know an alternative to these three? I do not.

Your vocabulary has a serious problem: you don't know how to call a long list of philosophers who call themselves agnostics and defend abstention from judgment. Starting with the one who invented the term: Thomas Huxley. It's a serious flaw.. — David Mo

Absolutely correct, David.

Here are two quotes from Albert Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

Here is some information from Stephen Hawking:

In his book on Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III, writes:
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.



Here's some information on Carl Sagan:

In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

You were given explanations over and over again. Everything you're asking has been answered and in depth. Calling them rationalizations doesn't take away from this. There's no reason to ask others to rehash the explanations for you all over again. — x-ray vision

If you want to consider rationalizations "explanations"...do so. Allow me the freedom to consider rationalizations "rationalizations."


I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:
“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”
Said another way: Just because it looks like an elephant and is dancing…does not mean it is an elephant dancing.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
Abstention from judgement would be 2 but not 3. They're soft atheists. If they abstain from judgement from lack of knowledge, they're also agnostics. You can be both. — Pfhorrest

EVERYONE is an agnostic.

Some of us acknowledge it.

Well...if you got 1000 people at random and asked them what word would they use to describe my take on the issue...


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


...my guess is 999 would say "that is a purely agnostic position."

Almost nobody but debating Internet atheists think that position is that of an atheist.


So I am not sure why you think your way of thinking would be more amenable to effective communications.

(Hint: It wouldn't!)

What do you call a person who neither claims nor denies that God exists? I don't see it on your list
— David Mo

That would be a kind of soft atheist. Probably also at least a soft agnostic, maybe even a hard agnostic — Pfhorrest

How about NOT CALLING THEM ANYTHING. Why not let each individual decide what, if any, descriptor they want to use?

If a person describes him/herself thusly, "I do not claim that any gods exist; I do not claim that no gods exist; I have no beliefs in either direction; and I make no guesses in either direction"...

...why not let that stand on its own?

And if the person wants to use a descriptor of agnostic, why not let that be okay?

Or if the person wants to use a descriptor of atheist, why not let that be okay?

Why the hell are so many atheists insisting that because one element in that description indicates a lack of "belief" in any gods...THAT PERSON MUST BE DESIGNATED AN ATHEIST?

How can anyone say that makes more sense than simply letting everyone make a designation choice for him/herself?

god must be atheist
1.7k
I disagree, the confusion is about the terms. Atheism is about belief, ones position on a specific belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, what one thinks about what can be known. That whats taught by the experts, if by experts you mean philosophical academia.
A person can be an atheist for a number of reasons, there are different kinds/forms of atheism. What they all have in common, what therefore is most definitive of atheism, is a lack of belief in god/gods.
— DingoJones

Bingo, Dingo! — god must be atheist

You certainly are entitled to agree with Dingo on this...but the thrust is wrong, no matter any technicalities of today's usage of the word "atheist."

In any case, the word should ONLY be applied to those who wish to use it as a descriptor...not to people who object. (The word "liberal" has that same quality.)

Further, in a language like English, that has such an enormous vocabulary that it has a word for almost everything...the notion that perspectives on the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" should be so confining that everyone's position on it MUST be classified either as "atheistic" or "theistic"...is an absurdity. We easily can devise words to differentiate between, for instance, "I 'believe' there are no gods"; "I 'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than..."; "I don't 'believe' there are no gods and I don't 'believe' there are any gods and I don't 'believe' that one is more likely than the other."

They are discrete positions...and each deserves the respect of a descriptor for those who want descriptors.

There is no way I will be defined as an atheist simply because atheists are determined to demand that anyone who lacks a "belief" in any gods must accept that designation.

By the way, the notion that non-theist is the same as "atheist" is so self-serving and gratuitous to the atheistic perspective...I cringe at having to dispute it. I am, most assuredly, a non-theist. BUT I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Positioning on the question is broad...running from "There is a God" to "There are no gods." There are nuances and subtleties that come into play. The earlier argument here was that simply ignoring those nuances and subtleties MAKES MORE SENSE than recognizing that they exist and are important to the people espousing them...is beyond reason.

Thank you for considering my position on this.

Please consider this a response to your post also, Echarmion.

Echarmion — Echarmion

god must be atheist
1.7k
↪Echarmion It's amazing how others can express what I say with using 1/4 the amount of words that I use. Congratulations. — god must be atheist

That IS wonderful gift he has, GMBA. I wish I had it, but I don't. I was composing a response to both your earlier posts, but found the damn thing was running too long.

Gotta go tend to my aunt right now, but I'll be back this afternoon to give as short a response as I can fashion. My thanks to both of you for putting so much thought and effort into this discussion.

Thank you for your comments, Eric.

Obviously, this discussion between Dingo and I has gotten out of hand. I've been relatively respectful towards him, but he has informed me that I am not worthy of respect and he intends show me as much contempt as possible.

Fine.

As for the descriptors, I am more than willing to let my "take" speak for itself...and much prefer to use it rather than the descriptor "agnostic."

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Obviously it is an agnostic one, so I do use "agnostic" as a shortcut.

The English language is arguably the most comprehensive in the world. ONLY atheists seem to think that there is no room for the distance between opinions on "There is a God" to "There are no gods." Atheists want to insist on a zero-sum dichotomy...either theist or atheist. Frankly, I have never known a person who chooses to use "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

My contention all along has been that insisting that EVERYONE (including babies and toddlers) who does not have a "belief" that at least one god exists MUST be deemed an atheist...is much less logical than confining that word to people who fit those two descriptions...and allowing babies to be babies, toddlers to be toddlers, and agnostics to be agnostics.

The convention that everyone who is not a theist has to be an atheist (a convention only atheists seem to insist upon) should go the way of the dinosaurs.

As for Dingo's way over-the-top Internet temper tantrum...that should be over by now, but..........

DingoJones
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Spelling and grammar are not measures of intelligence, they are measures of ones mastery of grammar and spelling. You are an endless bucket of stupid. And, since you have the memory of a goldfish to match the wit of a goldfish ill remind you: I dont kare if I misspel thinggs, it iss a litmmus test to detect pedantik moronz.
I could go back and correct my own posts to 100% correct grammar and spelling. The difference between us is that you are stuck stupid. Not because of your admittingly low levels of comprehension, but because of your grossly misplaced arrogance.
(Quick, point out that I should have typed “admittedly”. Lol, what a joke) — DingoJones

Poor little Dingo. Still in his tantrum.

You've got to learn how to control that. Same day you will be an adult...and people will be less forgiving of that sort of thing.

Could be. Do you think it would be more ethical to I lie and pretend I do not feel that way?

DingoJones
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Your welcome, but the true gift im bestowing upon you is enlightenment, youre just to stupid to realise it. Im calling you names AND dismantling every wrong headed thing you barf onto your keyboard.
For example, despite claiming to be some kind of writer you are unable to articulate any actual humour in your responses. You are not clever, all you do is repeat the same thing (big surprise) about toddlers and tantrums which are two things Ive already said to you! :lol:
(Repeating my own quips back to me, but devoid of the same caliber).
Want another one? You are too engaged with the contents of your own ass to even realise that YOU are the joke, WE are all laughing at you dummy! Wise up.
I repeat, the ONLY thing you have going for you is sheer, stubborn stupidity. Eventually I will get bored of humiliating you, long before anything actually permeates its way past you nigh impenetrable baby mind.
You are like the character Wimp Lo, from the movie Kung Pow. He was purposely trained in martial arts backwards, so he thinks losing is winning. He gets kicked in the face, he gloats about his “face to foot style, howd you like it?” Or gets kicked in the nuts and falls on the ground “my nuts to shin style. I cannot stand, do you surrender?”
Thats you. Too hopelessly soft in the head to to realise when you should beg for mercy.
Youve lost on every front, if you had any shame at all you would shut the fuck up, but you cant, cuz you are just to obtuse. — DingoJones

A bit of advice in return, Dingo. If you are going to lecture me on my supposed stupidity, best not to have YOUR very first word be "your"...when you mean "you're." That is a truly amateur mistake...although I thank you once again for the laugh it elicited.

I hope you finally get over this juvenile temper tantrum. We still have things to discuss. Despite all your childish insults, I am willing to school you on this issue.

What does choosing death over pain have to do with what I said about hedonism? — TheMadFool

The question you asked of me...and which I was answering, was:

"Do you mean that your aunt wishes to end her life because of resignation? What do you mean by that?"

↪Artemis According to the author of the text, agnosticism is opposed to atheism and theism on epistemological grounds: lack of evidence. That is the meaning I give to the word. I don't know where you see the problem.

Theism: affirmation that god exists.
Atheism: denial that god exists.
Agnosticism: lack of evidence, then refrain of judgment.

By the way, the article has the defect of stopping at philosophically irrelevant and picturesque uses. To devote a few lines to skeptical religion, frankly... — David Mo

PRECISELY!

DingoJones
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Cretin I hadnt used yet, but you just earned it. Only a cretin tries to glom their way into an exchange with someone else and use it to indirectly address...well me in this case.
Also, sport implies a contest. You are no contest. The only thing, ONLY thing you have going on is a skull so thick you dont get tired of being punched in the head.
Do you know the reason you are making short responses now you dishonest stooge? Want me to tell you? — DingoJones

You are still raging like an out-of-control two year-old!

When you finally hit the "post comment" button do you drop to the floor and kick your heels against the carpet?

You have no idea of how much I am enjoying a guy like you throwing a childish tantrum while calling me the names you have been.

Thanks are due...consider this thanks given.

As you see, Dingo is so anxious to have me as a partner in philosophy, that even though he thinks I am a cretin, he cannot forsake his overly broad definition...and tell me to get lost.

So...I will continue my sport with him.

Thank you for sharing all that.

But the moment and atheist tells me that I, by definition, am an atheist...I want to tell that atheist to store the definition where it is unlikely to get sunshine.

Okay?

Wow...major league triggered.

I don't usually rattle people quite as much or as easily as I rattle you.

Thanks, Buddy.

I have acknowledged that the debating atheists of the Internet have taken control of the word...and gotten some lexicographers to use a definition of "lack of a belief in any gods."

But that is obviously nonsense.

Listen to the atheists on the Internet...and you can easily tell they are, to a person, people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Look...I can understand why they are begging others to be identified as atheists. They are interested in increasing the intelligence level of the atheistic DNA.

Still with all that childish, crass nonsense, Dingo?

C'mon.

Get control.

Anyway...I'm here for ya. Until the sun goes nova...or I shed this moral veil.

Thanks, BC. I brought much of that up earlier.

Right now we are not "debating" or "discussing." We are merely dealing with a temper tantrum on the part of Dingo.

I'm just having a bit of fun at his expense.

Still triggered. Oh, so, so sad.

You really have to get that childish stuff under control, Dingo...unless, of course, you are a child.

In any case, some people might say that one of the measures of "intelligence"...is the ability to act like a grown up...no matter how tight your panties get.

By that measure, you are still rocking the bassinet...while I am tooling in a Lamborghini.

Still all triggered, I see. Okay. Some people take longer than others to get their shit together.

Anyway...about my supposed lack of intelligence and reasoning skills:

Back before the Internet, a person who wanted to share an opinion had to write an opinion piece (op ed or letter) to a newspaper or magazine. The competition was fierce, and relatively few pieces were published. Those that were had a real name and city of residence attached.

Certain publications were coveted by those of us who competed for space…The New York Times was always the top prize and Newsweek and Time, were the two most sought-after of the national news magazines.

The submissions had to be thoughtful, logical, and well-constructed. Very few sloppy writers ever made the cut.

I had an op ed sized piece published in the New York Times…an essay that took issue with something A. M. Rosenthal had written. (Abe Rosenthal, portrayed in the Movie The Post, was a very powerful newspaper man…the guy who got the Pentagon Papers published. But I got to debate him on the issue of drugs—in his newspaper—in a piece that was published without so much as a comma being changed.

Newsweek published one of my essays as a MY TURN (an especially sought-after spot) which included a photo and a $1000 honorarium. That also was published exactly as I wrote it.

After the debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, Newsweek and Time Magazines each received over 800 letter submissions. The debate was huge news. Both magazines published letters from me…two different letters.

Reading those pathetic pieces you write and boast about, Dingo, and hearing the derisive comments you have for someone so much your better…is great for my digestion. Laughter does that for the digestive system.

Grow up a bit…then come back and take your medicine. I’ll take it easy on you. I get no pleasure from picking on someone so markedly inferior in writing and reasoning talent.

Dingo...this is a philosophy forum. You ought really to act more like a philosopher...than a petulant adolescent. We would recognize that you are acting, but we could at least respect the attempt.