Hello ProgressiveU,
I came here because of a blog claiming that Intelligent Design was "Leading Edge Science", and I wanted to respond to it. However, evolutiongeek beat me to the post. So I have decided to introduce myself by blogging about another interest of mine, atheism.
I'll be as upfront as I can be. I am an atheist. What exactly do I mean by that? Let's break down the word ... a theist is a person who believes in the existence of God or gods. The prefix "a" means "without". So at its most basic level an atheist is a person who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. I can also tell you from personal experience that if all you know about a person is that he is an atheist, then that is all you really know about him. You are not on firm grounds inferring an atheist's beliefs about anything other than his belief in God or gods.
Because I am an atheist, I have also been accused of being a communist. I am not. I have quite a few atheistic friends and to my knowledge none are communists. People assume I believe in evolutionary theory. I do. They also assume that my belief in evolutionary must be a major reason I am an atheist. It isn't. I was an atheist before I became an evolutionist. In fact, evolutionary theory was not a major reason for very many of my friends to become atheists either. I should point out that Raelians are atheistic and they are NOT evoutionists. They believe that space aliens with superior genetic knowledge created life on earth pretty much the way it is.
There are atheists that are liberal (in most things I would fit in here). There are atheists that are conservative (in some things I fit in here). There are atheists that support abortion rights, there are atheists that support banning abortion. There are atheists that support homosexual rights, there are atheists who are against it. There are atheists who are great people, there are atheists who are scumbags. There are well-educated atheists, there are high-school drop-out atheist. We pretty much cover the political, intellectual, and moral spectrum.
This lack of cohesion is a problem, or so I think. We have a difficult time agreeing on pretty much anything. And because of that we are an insignificant political body. Sometimes I think atheists are the only group left in which it is politically correct to discriminate against. I'm not saying that everybody does, of course. But discrimination is not an uncommon thing. Take this following quote:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Do you know who said this, and when? I'll bet you've never heard it. It was said by George Herbert Walker Bush during his 1988 Presidential campaign. Imagine him saying the same thing about blacks, women, or even homosexuals. With respect to blacks or women it would have cost him the election. With respect to homosexuals, it MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have cost him the election, but at the very least it would have created an uproar that would be remembered today. The fact that it was spoken against atheists made it not even newsworthy.
Recently there has been a spate of militant atheists come out with books; Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation, and Daniel Dennett Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. These books have generally gotten poor reviews by theistic reviewers. But there seems to be a polarization among atheists. Many atheists see these books as being needlessly antagonistic to the theistic community and (face it) we live in a theistic community. Others see Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett as speaking words that need to be said (more on this shortly).
With Dawkins and Dennett a major stimulus to publish comes from the upswing in activity of Christian fundamentalists. Specifically their attempts to legislate some variant of creationism being taught in high school science classes. One particularly annoying tactic that is used is to equate evolution with atheism. There are a number of real scientists who fully accept both evolutionary theory and theism. So to counteract that creationist tactic, these scientist have often become major contributors to the anti-creationist position. Included in this group is Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, Francisco Ayala, etc. While Dawkins and Dennett applaud their support for evolutionary theory they have two other problems. (1) They generally imply that science provides support for God's existence. The popular press has jumped on this and there has been a number of articles there espousing this view. Dawkins and Dennett STRONGLY disagree. (2) They see the use of theistic evolutionists to defend evolutionary theory is another example of atheists being told to keep their mouths shut. It is as though we do not have a right to speak our minds and give our reasons for being atheists.
Harris, on the other hand, seems to be inspired to write his books more due to the worldwide rise of fundamentalist Islam though he gives no quarter to Christianity either. He believes that with the technological world we live in now, the only way for us to survive is by exclusive use of reason. He sees all religion, but especially Islam as being a threat to our continued existence.
I'm frankly very ambivalent. Like most atheists I do not enjoy intentionally antagonizing theists. Furthermore, I have many theistic friends as well, and they are great people. I also believe that everybody is entitled to their opinion. But, being an atheist who is willing to speak my mind, I have a great deal of discussions with fundamentalist theists who I think are incredible jerks. I do not like the idea that somehow I am supposed to give their beliefs respect when (1) they don't do likewise for mine, and (2) oftentimes their beliefs ARE just plain silly.
For instance, a pastor of a major church in Cleveland, Ohio argued with me that the reason the bible is hard to understand (first of all, I disagreed that it is ... and yes, I have read and studied it) is because if God made its meaning clear (as the Rev. said he could have) then we would have all believed in his existence, Satan's word would have had no chance of influencing us, and therefore we would have been robbed of our free-will in a manor that would have been detrimental to us. So in other words, whenever we are presented with a convincing argument, we are robbed of our free-will. That must mean that (1) my teachers who always considered being the good ones, were actually doing me harm when they convinced me of something, and (2) everybody who smokes or overeats have not yet heard a convincing argument that doing so is bad for them. This whole argument is silly. Why should I give it more respect than the argument that storks bring human babies to their mother? Both are equally ridiculous. People are entitled to believe either, but their belief is not necessarily entitled to my respect.
I think this is more than enough for a first post. I may post more later on as to why it is I do not believe should anyone be interested.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
As a fellow athiest you will always have people that look down on us. We go against the grain of society and like everything else that does so, we get the boot.
http://www.colbertnation.com/
http://www.NRA.org/
You sound very educated on this matter. I am a christian but do not judge anyone for their beliefs. I have a lot of friends of different religions and many with no religion. I have wanted to ask someone what is the difference between beint an atheist, deist, and an agnostic? I could research it myself, but if you want to clarify the differences, I'd love you forever :)
Peace n Bike Grease~Sara
Athiest you do not believe in anything.
Agnostic you believe there is a higher power but it is not personified as in a god. Examples are like fate, destiny, and so forth.
This is at least my definitions of them.
http://www.colbertnation.com/
http://www.NRA.org/
Thanks! I like to know exactly what I'm talking about. Unlike some christians I can't just take "their" word for it LOL
Peace n Bike Grease~Sara
As I pointed out an atheist is a person who has no belief in God or gods.
The generally accepted definition of an agnostic is a person who believes it is unknowable whether or not God or gods exist. My own personal view is that this is an unsatisfactory term (even if was invented by a hero of mine, Thomas Henry Huxley -- who was known as Darwin's Bulldog). Either a person believes in the existence or Gods or they don't. A person who believes that God's existence is unknowable to me obviously doesn't believe they exist. So to me an agnostic is also an atheist.
Agnostics often object. They say that since they do not believe that God's existence is knowable, then they do not necessarily believe in God's non-existence either. My response is that it is absolutely impossible to rule out the existence of all possible gods so no atheist believes that it is 100% sure without a doubt that no god exists. So under their description all atheists are agnostics. But it is impossible to rule out the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Rex the Wonder Gremlin as well. But that is no reason to believe that any of them REALLY exist. I feel very strongly that all the evidence suggest that postulating the existence of a god explains nothing, while at the same time presenting what I see as unsolvable logical problems. This is especially true for the existence of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
A deist is a person who believes that a god created the universe but does not interfere in its everyday activities in any way. While such a God is logically possible it is certainly irrelevant and cannot be the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
A pantheist (a term you did not ask me to define) is a person who believes that the universe IS God. Under this interpretation we are all part of God, as is everything else you can possibly think of. Pantheists usually believe there is a mystical ability of these parts to communicate and see evidence of it in paranormal activities such as ESP, telekinesis, intercessory prayer, and clairvoyance. I believe the evidence clearly points to these activities not existing.
Thanks for reading the post
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle.
Wow, I feel like I just got a lesson from a professor!! Thank you for all the interesting and informative information. I am taking science and religion next semester and I'm sure I will be in there with a variety of people with many different beliefs. Thank you again!!
Peace n Bike Grease~Sara
I disagree with you on the Agnostic issue. I am Agnostic, and I do not think it is reasonable to draw a conclusion on the existence or non-existence of a higher power, given that there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either case 100%.
You say that Agnostics are basically Aethiest, which I contest. An Aethiest believes 100% that a higher power does not exist, same way a Theist believes 100% irrefutably that a higher power does exist. If you are not sure 100% on your stance you are Agnostic.
The problem I see with a Theist or Aethiest stance is that they both hinge on faith. Agnosticism is a 100% skeptical stance. If an Aethiest doubts then they are not Aethiest, they are Agnostic. There is no room for doubt when you declare that God does not exist, you are not stating that it is likely, you are stating it as something you are certain of.
That is not to say that all Aethiests are Agnostic, because you will find Aethiests who believe without doubt, and with a faith only witnessed elsewhere in Theists, that God does not exist.
When we consider how Earth bound we are, I mean we can barely get off one single planet, let alone explore any significant amount of the universe we live in, let alone the entire cosmos, we really have to stand back and conceed that we know fuck all about anything. Guessing games are great and theorizing and searching feverishly for proof are to be encouraged, but taking a definite stance in the face of such limited knowledge is hardly grounded and definitely not progressive.
I generally prefer talking to Aethiests over Theists about such matters, because Aethiests at least investigate and are open to serious debate on the issue. Many have come from religious backgrounds and have investigated their way out of the total willful suspension of disbelief demonstrated by Theists. But I feel many Aetheists I know are on the road to Agnosticism.
(1) WARNING NIT-PICK RANT COMING UP BECAUSE YOU HAVE HIT UPON A PET PEEVE OF MINE
I find it interesting how people almost never misspell "theist" but often do misspell "atheist". The word "atheist" is formed by adding the prefix "a" to the front of the word "theist". As I stated above the prefix "a" means "without" while the word "theist" means "a person with a belief in God or gods". So at the most basic level all an atheist is, is a person who is without a belief in God or gods.
An "Aethiest" would be a person who is the most "Aethi". Since I have no idea what it takes to Aethi I cannot tell you if I am one or not. The other term you use, "Aetheist", would be a person who holds to the tenets of Aetheism. Since I have no idea what those tenets would be I cannot tell you whether or not I am one of those either.
(2) Now on to your REAL points. I doubt if you will find, anywhere, a person significantly more atheistic than I am. However, even I do not think it logically possible to rule out all potentially existing gods. So then am I really an agnostic? To call me that, I think would be misleading.
While I don't think it is possible to rule out all potentially existing gods, I do think it is possible to rule out any god that would matter. I think that the only gods we can not rule out would be ones that made the universe and then let it run on by purely natural means without ever interfering in it in any manner. Such a god would be irrelevant to us whether it existed or not.
(3) Perhaps, one could accuse me of going overboard in the other direction. That is possible. I still think that "agnosticism" is a cop-out. Either you believe or you do not. If you are not sure then I do not see how it is that you can believe.
But in any case, I am perfectly happy to let any individual call himself whatever it is he is most comfortable with.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Your point on the word Atheist is fair enough. I was actually under the misguided impression that Atheist was an Americanisation of the word. So point taken.
Now to the matter at hand:
Richard Dawkins believes irrefutably that their is no higher power, and no supernatural. He believes that everything around us can be explained by material processes alone. He even reiterated this belief in his own words a few nights ago in an interview on Irish television. That is an Atheist. He made no room for ifs, buts, or maybes. I'm not trying to insult you by calling you Agnostic, I am Agnostic myself.
Your dismissing of all higher powers as redundant to your argument, only highlights the fact that you are focusing merely on traditional religious notions of God. When I say as an Agnostic that I'm not convinced 100% by Atheistic Materialism, that is not to say I am giving a seconds creedance to the crazy perceptions of God held by many Theists, those can be suitabley alligned with you analogies of the flying spagetti elephant.
If you believe Agnosticism to be a cop out, then by that measure you must really respect the views of the Theist who believes without evidence in a God who rules over the material world. I think a leap of faith like that is a cop out, as is the belief that the entire cosmos can be reduced to nothing more than matter and material process, especially when we don't even know the total mechanics of the human brain, let alone the cosmos. It would surely be more of a cop out to say, there is no God, case closed, than saying I don't know but I'll keep searching for conclusive evidence until the day I die. Taking a stand is just that, stationary, to do that without conclusive evidence is not to be applauded and you surely can't disagree with that, because that is exactly what Theists do.
It is theorised by many, the existence of higher levels of consciousness. It is speculated that the world of matter is in fact the lowest level in the cosmos, with beings and entities existing in higher plains without matter. Yet you wave these ideas away as irrelevant even if they are correct?
"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
That is a quote from the Society for American Atheists.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
(1) We seem to be arguing definitions which is a useless task. For me an atheist is anyone who doesn't have a firm belief that God or gods exist. For you an atheist is only a person who actively denies the possibility that God or gods can exist. Fine, you can use any defintion you want. So long as I know what it is, I will understand what you are saying.
The only argument I have against it is that I think my definition is more appropriate from an historical perspective as I have detailed in previous comments. On a practical basis your definition has the exact opposite effect of mine. While I turn all agnostics into atheists, you turn all atheists into agnostics. Even Richard Dawkins says that it is impossible to rule out all possible gods.
(2) It is incorrect that I dismiss the "conscious universe" idea as being irrelevant even if correct. I dismiss it as being wrong. I believe the evidence against it approaches certainty that it is wrong.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
1) I don't turn all Atheists into Agnostics. Only ones who do not fit in with the definition of Atheism, but who fit the criteria of Agnostic.
Richard Dawkins said in his own words that he did not entertain the existence of anything supernatural, or that which could not be explained by material processes. It was live on TV last Friday evening. I would trust his first hand version of his own beliefs over your report of what he allegedly believes.
So Ricard Dawkins couldn't possibly be an Agnostic. Neither could any of the Atheists who are connected with the Society of American Atheists.
An Atheist is an Atheist, you are one or you're not. You can't really cook up your own individual interpretation of what Atheism is and expect the actual definition and belief system to mutate to suit your own views.
2)You dissmiss the idea of a conscious universe as wrong based on a belief? Then surely you shouldn't be dismissing it as being wrong?
(1) Definitions are arbitrary. If the Society of American Atheists defines what they mean by Atheist it is what they mean. It may or may not be what I mean by the word. As a matter of fact it isn't. I take a more etymological view of the word. It doesn't matter though. Once they tell you what they mean by the word, you know what they mean and should understand what is being said. If you go back up the posts I defined atheist as I use the term and made my meaning quite clear. You have also defined it and made your meaning quite clear. I understand what you mean by your terms. Definitions are automatically true by ... definition. They may not automatically be accepted but they are true. If I were tell you that when I use the term "gurgh", I mean a blue-eyed from wearing a saddle, you should know exactly what I mean when I use the term, regardless of whether or not you think blue-eyed frogs wearing saddles exist. It is simply not worth arguing about definitions. Keep in mind what a person means when he says what he says and you will be fine regardless of whether or not you accept that particular definition.
(2) I do not dismiss the idea of a conscious universe based on a belief. I dismiss it based on the evidence.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
1) If I declare that I am an Agnostic and that I believe irrefutably in God and somebody says, 'hey you're actually a Theist', would you see it as reasonable for me to declare that as long as they know what I mean by my personal interpretation of Agnosticism, there is no problem?
You description of your belief system as Atheism is misleading. Especially when it fits in under the catagory of Agnosticism. If people who aren't clear on the actual definition of Atheism read your description without it being chalanged it would be misinformation.
2)What evidence irrefutably dismisses the posibility of higher levels of consciousness? I would actually love to read about it, I am more than happy closing a door on a possibility and shifting my focus elsewhere if it has been conclusively proved wrong.
(1) It would be OK with me so long as you give your definition beforehand. If you state that you are an agnostic without defining it then go on to say that you believe "irrefutably in God" then my first question to you would be, "Why do you think you are an agnostic?" That would bring out your definition. Whatever your definition would be is unarguable. Your definition is your definition. I do not have to define things that way, but if you do then I can deal with it. Others should be able to as well.
(2) In my post I was quite clear in stating what my definition was. I was also quite clear in stating that it was MINE and not necessarily that of others. I also was quite clear in stating why it is that I think my definition is appropriate. I think the only way someone could have been misinformed from my post is if they did not read it well.
(3) We never prove anything conclusively wrong or conclusively right. I think the weight of the evidence says that the chances of the "conscious universe" hypothesis being correct is negligible. That is as good as we can do. That is why I rule it out.
(4) Detailing all the evidence is beyond the scope of this post. However, I will venture into some of it for you. As I understand it here is the gist of the "conscious universe" hypothesis:
The universe is ONE. Everything is connected spiritually. We are all part of a single consciousness.
If this is so then (a) why can I not read your thoughts? (b) Why is there NO credible evidence anyone can read anyone else's thoughts. (c) Why is it that despite the fact that we can measure very subtle phenomena (we can measure fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation, for instance, to an accuracy of 1/1,000,000 of a degree Celcius) we cannot measure anything that would correspond to the plane where this consciousness takes place. (d) All evidence available to us points to everything that we can tell is consciousness, its consciousness arises out of the matter of their own brain. (e) Conscious entities seem to do things that have a discernible purpose and their activities can be clearly distinguished from randomness. Why can we not see anything of the like on part of this "cosmic consciousness"?
Until we find good evidence to indicate that anything other than natural processes are taking place I think we can safely reject any supernatural processes.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Theists do make a leap of faith, but it often not completely void of evidence. It's just that most people that aren't theists don't think that these pieces of evidence show anything. It's a matter of interpretation. If I witness someone come back to life after their heart has stopped for several minutes, I will think that this is an act of God, while some agnostic or atheist will probably think of it in terms of chemical reactions or whatnot. Sure, theists can't explain everything that is valid to their religion, whatever it may be, but that's where they take the leaps of faith. If I didn't see any evidence that there was a higher power, then I wouldn't believe in God.
I can't argue the atheist side, because I have never been an atheist.
~C
Visit my blog.
As always you can do as you wish. If you want to make "a leap of faith" that is perfectly fine with me. You have the right to do so. It is my opinion, faith is HIGHLY overrated. I recommend avoiding it unless reason reason happens to be totally unavailable to you. I have seldom to never found that to be the case though.
Evidence is NOT evidence until it has been thoroughly subjected to reason. You need to ask questions that not only ask for confirming instances, you need to ask questions that ask for contradictory instances. For instance, when I lived up North I remember seeing on the news a story about a young boy falling through the ice into a lake. He was under the ice for about 15 minutes before being pulled out. His heart was not beating. He was rushed to the emergency room and his heartbeat was restored. Was this an act of God? His family certainly thought so.
The rest of the story is that he was still in a coma. He remained in a coma for two weeks and then died. When you look at the results it seems to me more likely that God wasn't involved (or at least any God that one would want to worship). If this is so then at the very least it shows that it is possible for human hearts to be restarted after stopping without God's help. If that is possible then it is possible that every instance a human heart is restarted is not the result of God's help either. So it is possible that none of those instances are miracles.
Is there anything that COULD be unequivocally described as a miracle. Sure! Amputees have lost limbs. I am sure that they, their family and their friends pray for God to help them with this situation. Why doesn't God grow back a limb. That doesn't sound too much harder to me than curing cancer. The only thing about cancer is that we know there are plenty of cases of spontaneous remission. We know several natural mechanisms how this COULD have come about. Funny how there has never been a spontaneous regrowth of a human limb.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I am not asking anyone to believe what I believe. It is your right to say that what I think is completely unreasonable as much as it's my right to say I believe it. If reason and logic and everything can explain things for you, that's great. I'm happy for you. It doesn't work on everything for me. And that may or may not be a cause of ignorance.
As far as your example... well, when people are thrown into ice water, they go into a sort of coma, if you would. Most of their bodily functions slow down. If they come out of the water soon enough, they can restart those functions back up. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But that wasn't the type of case I was referring to. I know why that boy's heart started back up. I don't know why other people's hearts start back up. Maybe within the next couple years I'll learn, and then I won't see it as a miracle anymore.
You might explain some things that have happened to me as chance (and I don't care to go into them, really), but I don't. I think it's too much to say that all these little things happened at exactly the right time to give me something that changed my life forever. Perhaps things haven't finished their cycle yet, as with that boy, and in the end, any God wouldn't do some horrible thing to me, so he must not exist.
I am not God. I cannot explain all the things that happen in the world, whether they be good or bad. The explanation of many of the things that I 'know' may in fact be total lies. I don't know. But I chose to believe in God, because that makes sense to me. I respect that it doesn't make sense to you, and I respect your arguments against my belief. But I highly doubt you're going to change my belief by a few examples. As long as you don't go on a murderous spree against people of faith, then I will continue to respect you.
~C
Visit my blog.
As always you do not owe me or anyone else an explanation for what you believe. And believe it or not it is not my intent to get you to believe as I do. I have been through enough of these things to know if it were my intent, the end result would be that I would go off by myself feeling a total failure. It is my intent to (1) present my case as best I can because it helps me organize my thoughts, and (2) give others something to think about and respond. That way I can find flaws in my reasoning and hopefully correct them. I think I will have also performed a similar service to anyone who actually does respond.
Life-changing events happen in everybody's life including mine. I do not see the need to invoke God's action to explain any of them. I find this especially true when one considers the very real indications from a host of different areas that God doesn't exist. But hey, that's me.
I truly wish you the best.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions, then. I know I don't owe you an explanation of my beliefs, but it helps me probably as much as it helps you. Especially when there are people that expect an explanation out of me. I know a number of atheists who it seems to be their life mission to bring down all organized religion. They have a tendency to verbally attack anyone who shows a slight difference of opinion. It is these people that I explain myself to, in a small effort to try to get them to stop being so close-minded. I know I often fail, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying. Yet, I'm not trying to get anyone to follow religion either (I'd be a horrible missionary, for more than just the obvious reasons you pointed out below). I'd just like to see a world where we all aren't attacking each other on the basis of a faith, but rather talking about our differences, and perhaps even celebrating those differences. Tall order, I suppose.
And I don't mean a huge event that changed the course of my life. I mean a series of small events that alone would mean absolutely nothing. But together they result in a huge change. It just happens to have taken place over a good 4-5 year period.
~C
Visit my blog.
"I doubt if you will find, anywhere, a person significantly more atheistic than I am."
I don't know, I have read Pharyngula... (scienceblogs.com/pharyngula if you haven't had run into it already) :)
Cheers,
Brian
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
I know PZ Myers fairly well. He may or may not be more atheistic than me, but I don't think the difference is significant.
How were your exams, by the way?
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Ah, I figured you were familiar with PZ, and from what I've seen you write on here, you both are excellent in the point of holding people to what they say and not suffering "don't look at the man behind the curtain"-type arguments.
My exams are actually still ongoing, with one every day starting on Sunday and ending Thursday, but my ID/creationism presentation went over well (although there was one troll in the audience) and my professor has asked me to give it again at the conclusion of the course next year as well. My in-laws also just arrived from Canada and will be staying with my wife and I for the next two weeks, so things are going to be crazy to be sure. Anyway, keep up the good work and I look forward to your alaysis of the Cambrian fossils (Opabinia and Anomalocaris are among my favorite critters of all time).
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Absolutely wonderful post. It frustrates me that so many people see it fit to cry "atheist" when evolution comes up and spin lots of wild yarns about what atheists believe (or don't, as the case may be). In fact I usually find I have more in common with atheists than Christians, who usually cite Dawkins of the "pope" of the atheists. In any case, you did a terrific job of explaining your standpoint and I think many more people should read it; perhaps then they wouldn't be so apt to jump to false assertions.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
Hi. I'm a Biblical, evangelical Christian. The pastor you spoke with sounds like a nut if you ask me.
I'd like to ask a question. Do you believe it is wrong to murder someone?
Of course it is wrong to murder someone.
In anticipation of your argument let me ask you a question. If in the bible, God had said it is a good thing to dip a babies toes in boiling oil for no other reason than to hear them scream, would it REALLY be a good thing?
If, as I truly hope, you say "no", then you are saying that just because God says something is moral does not make it so. Therefore morality must exist external to God.
If you say "yes", then you need to read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and see all the things that God says you should be doing that you are not. If you were to live by that code fo ethics, you would soon be in locked up i prison on charges of being a mass murderer. So, come to think of it, if you agree with me that murder is not OK then you are saying that the bible is not the source of morality either.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Most of the laws in Leviticus, at least (I haven't gotten through Deuteronomy yet), don't apply to Christians, because Jesus came and made a new covenant. As far as Jews are concerned... most of those laws only apply in a theistic state of Israel, thus they cannot be carried out today, and especially not in the US.
~C
Visit my blog.
You have simply grabbed onto an explanation without REALLY taking a look at it.
(1) The Hebrew Bible, (Old Testament to Christians) is composed of three parts, the Torah or Law, the Neviium or Prophets, and Kethuviium or Writings. Leviticus is part of the Torah, or Law.
While Jesus does contradict the Torah in places in the New Testament Matthew also has him say:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 NRSV)
Matthew was written primarily for a Jewish audience. The early Jews did not like the perception that Christians thought that some prophet could override established Jewish customs. Matthew is reassuring them that Jesus doesn't. That is the academic take on the passage. If you are a biblical literalist you have a MAJOR problem making your argument until you can give a reasonable explanation for why it is that Jesus himself is saying that ALL of the Torah is to be taken just as it is ... still.
(2) Let's pretend that what you say is true ... that Jesus gave Christians a new covenant. In this new covenant it is no longer permissible to kill homosexuals, people who work on Sunday, women who get raped in cities but no one hears her screams, women not virgins on their wedding night, disobedient children, the animals that a woman may have had sex with, and the like. Then you have a MAJOR problem of explaining why not? Why would God think these things are good for theistic Jews but not for Christians? Did God realize he made a mistake back then?
(3) Even without considering any of the above you have a MAJOR problem explaining why a rational God would have come up with those horrible, immoral commandments in the first place.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I am by no means a Bible scholar. I have never read the Bible in it's entirety... although I tried. I ended getting put off by all the laws in Leviticus. Recently I have tried again, but school takes priority to those studies, and I have not had time to get past the first few chapters in Deuteronomy. I admire you in your knowledge. I'm just telling you what I know.
1) I am aware of the parts of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, that is the Bible I am studying, not the Christian Old Testament. And believe it or not, there are a number of small differences in the translations. I am becoming more and more aware that Jesus has broken a number of prophecies. He doesn't fulfill a number of them. But again, I haven't read the Bible in its entirety, so I can't point to direct passages for you. If I remember correctly, though, one of the Gospels also has Jesus talking about saying that the Jews were wrong in a number of the laws that they had. Interestingly enough, if the crucification happened the way it says in the NT, then it went way against Jewish law of the time.
2) The God in the OT and the God in the NT are very different. I am coming to the realization that this means that NT is just false. Or exaggerated, or translated wrong, or something. We go from a very vengeful God in the OT to one that will sacrifice a man to save the rest of mankind in the NT. I don't have the answers to your question, and I'm not going to pretend I do. I can ask them of some religious people I know, but that's about the best I can do.
3) Again, can't tell you. I've heard that a number of the commandments were set forth so that the Jews were completely separated from the rest of the ancient people. Sort of what someone mentioned earlier about the morality of murder. You don't murder someone because you get punished for it. Yes, it's not a perfect system, but how else are you going to instill morals on a people that don't have them?
I apologize if my argument doesn't make much sense. I've tried to explain myself, and I don't think I did a good job, but I can't think of another way to explain it.
~C
Visit my blog.
It is my sole intention to consider the merits of your views and express my own. I realize you think differently than I do. If I sound critical I apologize. For what it is worth, there are a LOT more people who think as you do than think as I do. I still think you and they are wrong and demonstrably so.
I do not think one should believe anything without sufficient reason to believe it. The problem I have with every theist I have ever talked to is that they do not seem to have sufficient reason to believe it. If one really wants to look only for confirming instances of faith then it is easy to fool yourself into believing that you do have sufficient reason. But without looking for and truly considering contradictory instances, then you don't really have ANY reason to believe at all.
For instance, you believe God exists. Not only that you believe a CHRISTIAN God exists. You believe that God turned himself into a living-breathing flesh-and-blood human being (while still retaining all his supernaturalistic God-like powers) and came down to this earth with a message for us. (I am of course generalizing your beliefs to that of other theists so I could be wrong on some of it, if so, I apologize and await corrections).
You believe that even though by your own admission you (1) haven't really read the bible through for yourself, (2) know there must be translation errors in the bible, (3) know that the bible has contradictions in it, and (4) the Old and New Testaments characterizations of God are unreconcilable to you. With those obvious concerns, why is it that you believe? You say it is because you take a "leap of faith". How is that different than my paraphrase of Mark Twain: "Faith is what let's us believe what we know is not true"?
Finally, I don't think that teaching people what blatantly isn't so is a good way of instilling morals under any circumstances.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I said I believe God exists. I did not say it was the CHRISTIAN God. Yes, I am currently a Christian, but I am looking critically at my faith and hugely considering converting. I probably will end up converting. I have written a number of blogs on criticisms I have with the Christian faith. However, this is a process. I have other obligations, namely my family, friends, and school, that take precedence over my critical studying of my religion. I am trying to make my way through the Bible. But with several constant demands for my time, not to mention the need to eat and sleep, I haven't managed to accomplish it yet.
You're probably right. I don't have enough reason to think what I do. Perhaps my faith is just a way for me to explain what makes no sense to me. No matter how much I study probability, it seems impossible to me that certain things occur, with a great deal of regularity. How can we explain people having different thoughts if every thought it simply a combination of electrical impulses and chemical signals. It just doesn't make sense to me. It might for you, but it doesn't for me.
And just for fun, how would you instill morals into a people that have none? I don't know, I'll admit it now. But I'm curious what you might say.
~C
Visit my blog.
mvenus==
And just for fun, how would you instill morals into a people that have none? I don't know, I'll admit it now. But I'm curious what you might say.
DB=
(1) Everybody has some type of morals. They may have ones that you, I and any rational person may consider poor but they have morals. So the question REALLY is how do you give a person BETTER morals?
(2) To answer that question requires an understanding of what morals really are. My understanding is that morals are a set of behaviors that govern how we interact with others. What governs the outcome of human interactions? I believe it is PRINCIPLES.
What do I mean by principles? I mean things like INTEGRITY (the making and keeping of promises), TRUSTWORTHINESS (dependability), EMPATHY (the ability to see things as others see them), DIVERSITY (the ability to see the worth of divergent opinions), COURAGE (the ability to assess what is right and then do it), GROWTH (a commitment to continual learning throughout life). These are examples of what I think are good principles. If you live your life in accord with principles such as these then in the long run you will be better off than if you don't. If others join in then society will be better off immediately.
I also believe these principles are teachable. I do not think they are easy to incorporate into your life, however. It is not a quick-fix. It requires practice, practice, practice. Keep at it and eventually the principles become habit. At that point one has learned.
An excellent book is Steven R. Covey's THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE. I would recommend that to anyone. It is written by a theist but the principles apply universally to theists and atheists.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Can you tell me why you believe that?
Because if we murder someone we get life in prison. That is rather common sense now isn't it?
The thought of god is dumb. He is a fictional character. I am going to start a religion in which we believe that bugs bunny is our god. PRAISE BUGS BUNNY.
"Lil Johnny is a vegetable, YOU ARE HEALED PRAISE THE LORD!!!...He may not look healed on the outside but he is on the inside...Please pass forth your money."
http://www.colbertnation.com/
http://www.NRA.org/
You are using circular reasoning. Why is it wrong? Because we punish you if you do it. Why do we punish it? Well because it's wrong, of course.
Your ad hominem attacks on belief in God are expected, and ignored.
There are many false representatives of Christianity that have given it a bad name. I am with you in opposition to people like Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker and Kenneth Copeland. They fit the "you will be healed, pass your check" expression you express bitterly. They are churchianity, not Christianity. If you read the actual Bible (not the kooks on TV) you'll find such people are not in keeping with the Bible.
How else am I going to explain it other then it is common sense. Everyone that does not live in a box knows that if you kill someone you are going to prison if you get caught. It has no religious tie to it what so ever. It is just a means of dicipline. If you kill someone your life is done. Why do you think that they have a life sentence instead of the death penalty most of the time. Unlike the Christian "rule" or statement in the Bible that states that if you take a human's life your life should be taken by a human.
http://www.colbertnation.com/
http://www.NRA.org/
The fact that you will be imprisoned or punished by any human means is immaterial. If you only refrain from cold blooded murder because of a fear of man-made retribution, then you are morally curupt, most likely suffering from a disorder like Narcisstic Personality disorder or Clinical Psycopathy. Both of these conditions make it impossible for the sufferer to empathize with other beings, which results in a self-centred form of survival. A cold blooded killer with no ability to empathize does not refrain from murder because he feels it is wrong, but because he fears prison or punsihment, or if he is a Theist, divine retribution.
A person who refrains from killing because he fears Hell is not moral. A person who refrains from murder because he has an innate sense of it being wrong is.
If you get on internet forums for intellectual debate, spluttering that something is "common sense" isn't going to win you any points. Please understand, you and I are on the same side concerning a few things. (I still believe murder is wrong, and I'm also an NRA member, just so you know.)
Some people in this country would argue for lesser sentences for murderers, arguing that they need "reforming" not punishment.
Please step outside the box of "it's just common sense" and tell me why murder is wrong.
DB===
Of course it is wrong to murder someone.
DLR==
Can you tell me why you believe that?
DB=
Yes, I can. Can you tell me why you didn't respond to my question to you?
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I tend to get sidetracked on a lot of different arguments and lines of reasoning because I enjoy debating so much. (You doubt? click here.)
I want to keep focused like a laser beam, you and I, on this one point. After that, I'll go back and answer your other questions. (I'm not convinced that "what if God said _____" is a good argument, but we'll examine it later.)
You believe it is wrong to murder. I'm asking if you can explain why you believe that, given your atheist beliefs.
It is wrong to murder somebody because it is generally not conducive to human survival. Even most religious people conceed to such Agnostic/Aethist reasoning when they find themselves killing in self-defence. According to Christian mandate you should turn the other cheek, but few will when their survival or that of a loved one is threatened by another murderous human being.
Human beings have a innate drive towards survival, it exists sans-religion. Thou shallt not kill is conducive to the survival of the species, but so too is necessary killing, as would be the case in self defence.
The Aetheist/Agnostic stance on morality is actually a lot more honest than the Theist. If we take this hypothetical scenario:
There is a chance for you to take a clear headshot with a rifle at a man who is about to push the button on a nuke that will end the life of millions of innocent people, destroy the environment and lead to the extinction of the human race. You have 5 seconds to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
According to Christian ethos you should not kill this man, because killing another human being is wrong, you should accept that he is evil and you are good and you will be rewarded in the afterlife for your inaction.
However I don't know anybody of any faith who would not pull that trigger. The justification comes with the lesser of two evils argument, which is not compatible with the view that you should not kill period as proposed by the ten commandments and the turn the other cheek policy.
Morality as dealt out by religious institutions is as unrealistic at their theistic 'certainties'. It is so open to calls of hypocrisy that the common sense survival aspect of it is lost in the face of institutional inflexibility, leaving the whole debacle open to ridicule from people who dislike the lies and trickery of these corrupt theological corporations.
Then why do murderers kill people? I'm talking about your calculating, intelligent people that take several FBI agents years to apprehend. Why would they act in a manner that endangers their own survival, if they are acting on evolutionary instinct to survive?
I've personally conversed with people who claimed that, while they would take steps to protect their loved ones, they would not "stoop" to kill an intruder to protect their family. That opinion is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. It's also morally repugnant, if you ask me. Self-defense is Biblical, and I have a couple of articles for you if you wish to debate that point.
Your contrived situation (and subsequent simulated responses from "hypocrite" Christians) is based on an incorrect understanding of Biblical mandates, and is not relevant. Unfortunately, all too many people would NOT pull the trigger. (Not every pacificist is a Christian, nor every Christian a pacifist.)
1) The type of murderers you speak of generally suffer psychological conditions like Narcisstic Personality disorder or similiar disorders related to clinical psycopathy. These conditions make it impossible for the sufferer to empathize with other people. They learn to react to situations intellectually, as opposed to feeling them emotionally. For example, a sad movie might emotionally move a normal person, they feel it. Whereas somebody with Narcissistic Personality disorder learns that this is a sad movie, but does not feel the sadness, they just learn to react to it because they learn that it is meant to be sad.
When we consider the fact that killing is essential to our survival, thanks to people who believe it is their divine right to shit as many children as they can into existence with no reagard for the impact their little treasures are going to have on the planet, we can see that such murderers could actually be natures way of providing survival tools for the many. There are too many people on the planet, consuming too many resources for us to survive, so nature provides us with people who will help to thin the population, these people if channelled into the right areas, will be viewed in history as great military leaders, or if unchannelled they may become murderers of the kind you described.
2)Jesus said turn the other cheek. If you are a Christian then surely the Bible should not overwrite the word of the Christ.
3)I reckon it's a safe bet that if an individual had the situation spelled out to them, most would pull that trigger. To be fair I can not say all with complete certainty, but would you really herald those who wouldn't as an asset to humanity? Would you declare that kind of morality as beneficial to mankind?
I do agree with your line on pacifists and Christians though. But the fact is that under Jesus' word all Christians should be pacifists, the Bible is not Jesus' word. So if you are a Christian and not a pacifist, well then you're a hypocrite, and all the Biblical reference in the world won't change that, unless it is directly from Jesus, and not another source which contradicts his teachings.
I am very happy to open a dialogue with you. But only if it is a TRUE dialogue. From past experience I can tell you that what you are asking is unlikely to accomplish that goal.
You are asking me to subject my beliefs to scrutiny. I have done so and feel confident I can express my view to you. From prior experience with "Biblical, evangelical Christians", I HIGHLY suspect I have subjected my views to MUCH greater scrutiny than you have yours. Perhaps I am wrong. But I will not engage in this discussion unless you too are willing to subject your views to scrutiny AT THE SAME TIME as I do.
By the way, my argument is a paraphrase of an argument first presented by Plato. If you want to "bone up" on the basics before we begin you can google "Euthyphro" and read his dialogue with Socrates. ... notice how I am giving you every opportunity to prepare ... you on the other hand are trying your best to keep your agenda secret.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
If by this you mean we are both firmly ensconced in our beliefs already, I would agree with you. But I believe you can have a true dialogue without promising to alter your beliefs in one way or another. I hope to expose some weaknesses in the atheistic belief.
I am offering up challenges to them. You instigated this thread, and I'm responding with my perspective. You may choose to respond, or not to.
The beliefs of both groups exist outside of yours or mine, and are subject to scrutiny whether you espouse them or not. You're one of its denizens/representatives with whom I hope to show (for yourself or for others here) the weaknesses in your belief system.
My views are open to scrutiny as much as you like. However, if I may ask, please be careful not to attribute the beliefs of others you've talked to to myself. In other words, instead of assuming "Christian A believes X and you must believe it too, isn't that kooky, ha ha," you might say "Christian A believes this. Is this also your belief?" and go from there.
I'd be happy to. However, I would argue that we cannot do so at the same time, because we'd make a mess of this thread by going back and forth on the different points. Since you are the one who brought up atheism for discussion, I propose we pursue that discussion first.
My "agenda" is no secret whatsoever; to demonstrate moral and logical weaknesses in the fabric of the atheistic belief system. As an evangelical Christian, it should also come as no surprise that I espouse Jesus Christ as Lord of all, and Savior to all who follow Him.
Thank you for your reading suggestions.
Shall we continue on the discussion of morality according to atheism?
That horse is out of the barn there Big Guy. And it has been for quite a while.
See:
http://www.progressiveu.org/141649-atheism-and-morality-introduction
http://www.progressiveu.org/173939-atheism-and-morality-wgatap-basics
http://www.progressiveu.org/123102-atheism-and-morality-the-euthyphro-dialogues
http://www.progressiveu.org/125818-atheism-and-morality-if-not-from-god-then-where
in that order.
One other point before I go. So far your responses have been to an almost unbelievable extent a cliche' of typical evangelical fundamentalist rhetoric. I'm sure you don't have a clue about how unbelivably rude you have been. How unbelievably condescending you have been. How unbelievably bigotted you have been.
You are 100% convinced that you are right and that examining your own beliefs would be (1) a waste of time, (2) distracting from your incredibly precise argument, and probably (3) potentially could become a part of Satan's plan to foment discord in the truly righteous. You seem to feel like that simply announcing that you are a "Biblical, evangelical Christian" gives you some type of universally recognizable moral superiority.
You ask a simple question, but not to get information. You ask it to try to set up a trap. You do not try and set up a logical argument. Instead you lie in wait for some type of opening that you hope and probably are convinced will appear.
Show some guts man! If you really have an argument ... make it. Go ahead, don't sit back. If you think atheism has "moral and logical weakness in it fabric", tell us up-front in a forthright manner what you think they are. Don't be coward hoping for something to appear while guarding yourself from scrutiny. What you are doing is intellectualy dishonest. I'm truly sorry you are unable to recognize it.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I come to ProgressiveU for discussion, not lectures. I have not been rude or condescending in the least; I have strived to be respectful and courteous to you, as I try for everyone who disagrees with me. But you've only had three posts directed at you to conclude all this, so I believe I'm working against some powerful preconceived notions of Christians/Christianity, which would be worthless to struggle against.
Of course I believe I am right. Guilty as charged.
I claim no moral high ground by saying I am a Christian. You inferred this yourself. It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from past discussion, but I can't help that.
I asked because different people give different answers, and I was curious what yours would be. It seems you feel a little too threatened by that.
I'm not sure what thread YOU are on, but it sure doesn't align with how things went down on this thread. My very first post, I was forthright about where I was coming from (Biblical Christianity) and posed a question. I then asked for the reason behind the answer you gave. I siad that this was a thread you had started about atheism, and not the best place to hijack towards a discussion of Christianity, but I'd be happy to take up that discussion in another thread.
My third post which seems to have sent you off the deep end fully explained that my intent was to expose some weaknesses in atheism.
You've accused me of a secret agenda almost from the beginning, which is completely and utterly false.
I thought we could engage in a rational discussion of atheism, and/or Christianity. I believe I was mistaken. As the saying goes, never try to reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into.
While it is true that you have only given three responses, In EVERY response, including your first one, you have not addressed a single point I have made. Not one. Zip. Zero. You even ignored a question I asked you directly. Why is that?
You are correct I accuse you of having a hidden agenda. Go back and read your posts. You haven't explicitly stated ANYTHING about what your position is. It leaves you with plausible deniability for ANY position you want. That is not honest give and take. Honest give and take means that you say upfront just what it is that you DO believe. You haven't done that. That, sir, is a classic example of a hidden agenda.
Here is an example of plausible deniability in action. Quoting you in you post above:
"I claim no moral high ground by saying I am a Christian. You inferred this yourself. It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from past discussion, but I can't help that."
Now quoting you from you post just above that one:
"My 'agenda' is no secret whatsoever; to demonstrate moral and logical weaknesses in the fabric of the atheistic belief system."
You think it is demonstrable that atheism is morally weak. How is that different in any significant way from claiming the moral high ground on the basis of Christianity?
What is annoying is not so much your intent to expose weaknesses in atheism. It is that you don't do it. Instead you ask dumbass questions in hopes of getting a response that you can pounce on. If you have a point, be honest about it and make it. But you do not seem to be capable of doing that.
I understand that you do not FEEL like you have been rude, condescending and dishonest. That is what is truly pathetic about this. You have been rude -- you make an unsubstantiated assertion that atheism is morally and logically weak. You have been condescending -- look at the tone of your question, "Do you think it wrong to murder someone?" You have been dishonest -- your juvenile attempt at an ambush argument.
Let's compare argument styles.
I lay out a post saying that I am an atheist.
You announce that you are a "Biblical evangelical Christian" and then ask whether or not it is OK to murder people.
So what am I SUPPOSED to make out of this question? Am I supposed to infer from this that you are asking for information concerning how an atheist views murder? Am I supposed to infer that you have real doubts that an atheist would believe murder to be wrong? If this is what you are truly asking then you are an idiot of the utmost order.
No, I didn't think you were that stupid. What I inferred was that you are attempting the classical fundamentalist ambush argument. You believe that an atheistic world view cannot rationally oppose murder. And from that I concluded you are just a second or third order idiot. From previous experience I felt confident that your argument would boil down to the bible saying "Thou shalt not kill" is the reason that murder is immoral.
In an effort to fend that off BEFORE you embarrassed yourself, I asked you the question of could God saying that it is a good thing to dip baby's feet into boiling oil for no other reason than to hear them scream, REALLY make it a good thing?
Now here is the crux of the matter and the difference between you and me. And why my style is more honest than yours. I EXPLAINED THE RAMIFICATIONS OF YOUR CHOICE BEFOREHAND. I told you that if you say "no" then you are saying that God's say-so doesn't necessarily make it so. Thus, morality must be independent of God. That was intended as a BIG HINT that your argument will not hold water.
You ignored it. Didn't respond to it at all. Instead you continued on with your ambush argument. You asked if I could tell you why it is that murder is wrong.
I was miffed that you didn't respond. So I used a loophole in your question. I decided to say, "Yes, I could tell you" and then I asked you why it is that you ignored my question to you. Again that was intended as a mild slap in the face for doing so. Its purpose was to get you ta actually think about your argument before you make it.
Your response was that you didn't think it was a very good question. And you didn't want to address it right then. Perhaps later. How condescending can you get? Then you repeated your question.
At that point I saw no reason to play your game if you had no intentions of even considering my arguments. So I told you that I would answer your question only if you answered mine. I even told you that the argument can be traced back to Plato and gave you a link to read about it. That was designed to give you the opportunity to become familiar with the argument before responding. Again notice the difference here between my style, and your ambush argument style.
You didn't respond. After thinking about it, I decided to lay waste to the type of argument I thought you were making. It is a common perception among Christians like you and it is DEMONSTRABLY bullshit. So I stopped what I was doing and posted 4 posts that go into detail on my beliefs.
Then you come back and without apparently even looking at those posts continue with your ambush argument above. That I found absolutely unbelievable!
So where does that leave us. You think I am irrationally holding onto an atheistic belief. I think you are an idiot of the second or third order. It should be noted that I have now posted a whole hell of a lot of reasoning as to how morals are determined without God. I think it shows a lot of rationality. You on the other hand, have posted nothing with respect to Godly morals that contradicts my assessment of you so far.
Again, I am happy to open a dialogue with you. But it must be an honest one. If you REALLY have an argument to make ... make it! Don't try this juvenile ambush argument shit. Be a man. Go out on a limb. Take a stand that can be evaluated. Risk criticism. I have! You haven't. Who knows, you may be able to change my opinion.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I believe I already explained that I have the inclination to get sidetracked on all kinds of side issues, and I wanted to try to hone in on the one line of reasoning regarding origins of morality without a Divine creator. You may call that a weakness if you wish, but notice that I said I'd be happy to return to your counter-charges in due time.
When you put yourself out on a public forum, you have no right to demand full disclosure from anyone who offers a challenge. You wrote the post. I asked a question. It makes no sense for you to (attempt to) put me on the defensive.
So was I hiding my agenda, or revealing my alleged claim of moral high ground? You're accusing me of two things here, and they can't go together.
Yes of course I think I'm right. I believe that Christianity has moral superiority to atheism. Does that mean that I think I am personally morally superior to an atheist? Not at all.
I don't conduct discussions grounded in feeling.
I doubt we have many new readers here now, but I will leave the judgment up to them. Asserting atheism is morally and logically weak is not an insult, and you would do well to remove your personal feelings from the debate if you are so prone to getting stubbed up because someone challenged you on it. Such behavior can be perceived as insecurity about your beliefs if a simple question comes off as "rude" to you. Someone not so emotionally invested, and sensitive, would reply "prove it" to a claim about moral weakness.
The same with your other claims. "Do you think it is wrong..." etc. carries no "tone" with it whatsoever. If I said "You jerk, you probably think murdering is okay," I can see you getting a little peeved. Not this.
You haven't demonstrated anything. Except maybe insecurity, hypersensitivity and a penchant for taking offense at the slightest non-provocation.
Again, I thought at first that a thoughtful dialogue could take place, but I see I was mistaken. I've debated atheistic-minded individuals with far greater capacity for polite debate and refined argument, and you, sir, appear not to be one of them, so we'll have to part ways.
(1) All I ask of you is to present your case in an honest forthright manner. You somehow seem to think that is unfair and rude. Go figure, especially from someone who was going to show me the the moral weakness of atheism.
(2) EVERYBODY has the right to expect and demand in an honest discussion that the person he is discussing something with be honest and forthright.
(3) My question was not "a side issue". It straightforwardly goes to the heart of your argument. Your inability to discuss things forthrightly makes your offer to discuss things is unacceptable. You have not yet earned that amount of trust.
(4) I still find it interesting that you keep responding on this thread. I presented MY argument in full in 4 posts that I left you links to. (Which by the way is the honest way to do things), It seems if you were REALLY interested in my views you would have gone there and responded.
(5) If truth be known I am not offended by your technique. I think it childish. I am amused by its caricaturistic nature of the response. You do not want your views subjected to criticism, you only want to criticise others.
I decided to point out to you that you are being rude and dishonest because I think you are incapable of realizing that on your own. You see yourself as being on a mission approved by God himself. With that view of your actions how could you see yourself as being rude and dishonest? Unless someone else points it out to you and makes you think you are never going to change. And you REALLY NEED to change.
Now if you REAL