I most certainly did not twist his words. This is his statement; he made an assertion in it which was quite clear to me.And it means something completely different when you bother to insert the first part of the sentence. I would smite you regardless if you did so intentionally, ignorance is no excuse.
insert the first part of the sentence. I quoted you directly and left nothing out. You said, and I quote, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'."
Yet you accused me of misquoting you, even though I included every single word that you wrote in that post. Misquoting by definition means to leave stuff out of a quote. It's usually caused by paraphrasing what someone says. Yet when you criticized me, you simply emphasized the first three words, "a religious claim", which I included. That means, by definition, I did not misquote you. Now, I might have misunderstood you, but that is not the same thing as misquoting you at all.
To clarify what I meant, let me restate my post
Your statement here, "A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'."
, made it pretty clear that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic". In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.
In short, this is a statement you made. It is a statement that you presumably stand by, since you wrote it in response to kymer's statement, "Well that's an inaccurate view, bert. Rational and religious are not mutually exclusive."
. In other words, the things you wrote in this statement are things that you agree with, and that you are presumably trying to make clear to kymer. I interpreted your statement to mean that a religious person - someone with a religious belief, or claim as you put it - could not gain knowledge via a rational structured epistemology except through magic.
Now, as I've said twice now, it's possible I misunderstood what you said. But if so, it was an honest misunderstanding - I was not intentionally twisting your words, as you implied by accusing me of lying. Looking at it now, I interpreted the second "it" as referring to "rational structured epistemology", but you might have instead referred again to "a religious claim". If that's the case, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. As for ignorance, I don't agree. A misunderstanding does not imply ignorance, and your accusation that I misquoted you is simply wrong, as I showed above, so that cannot be used to suggest ignorance either.