MATT:

You need to re-think one part of your argument. 

“People are superstitious. Knocking on wood and praying make them feel good about uncontrollable situations.  They fear death so much they want to believe stories over the cold hard truth.”

This would be true only if religious belief led one to fear death, but quite the opposite is true.  Martyrs have embraced, sometimes even sought out death, because of their “superstition”.  Soldiers have volunteered for suicide missions, assured they would be rewarded in accordance with their religious beliefs. 

Fear is not a pre-requisite of religion.  I hope you’ll admit that and re-work your last argument.

MATT:

Good question on “species”.

I certainly don’t think of different human groups as species.  However, behaviors such as abortion, when linked so clearly to racial groups or social groups do seem to determine exactly what the “human race” is, or at least what it will be.

What do you think about that?

AKUSAI:

I SET YOU UP FOR THIS ONE, KNOWING HOW YOU ALL TO ASSOCIATE YOURSELVES WITH “SCIENCE” AS THOUGH IT IS CONTRARY TO CHRISTIAN BELIEFS.  You said:

“You are not in any way a good scientist. You are, in fact, a non-scientist who clearly has a very poor understanding of science, and it is an insult to good scientists everywhere for you to identify as one.”

the words I wrote that “we must hang onto our own ideas even in the face of contrary evidence.” were not mine.

They were part of an article “How Science Works” by Dr. David Goodstein, Vice Provost and Professor of Physics at Caltech, one of the world’s greatest research institutions. 

WOULD YOU INCLUDE HIM IN YOUR LIST OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE?

His exact words were:

“Because science is an adversary process in which each idea deserves the most vigorous possible defense, it is useful for the successful progress of science that scientists tenaciously hang onto their own ideas, even in the face of contrary evidence.”

PEOPLE WHO LET SCIENCE RULE THEIR IDEAS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS AT ALL AND DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD TO THE FIELD.

Consider the words of Einstein (another pretty good scientist):

“A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” 

Some of the posters on the site don’t even know who Francis Bacon is, yet they think they understand science.  They are (if they are scientists) “mere specialists” and not “real seekers after truth”.  Are you sure you know which group you belong to?  It seems to me the tail wags the dog among Atheists.

Jesus, to Christians, is God. If you believe in God you believe that he is in a position of judgment over all mankind. Ask any of our Atheist friends, they can go on and on about the subject of the judgmental Christian God much longer than I can. So, if Jesus called a group of Pharisees “snakes” that is not him being a hypocrite, because Jesus-if he is God- is in a position of judgment, he knows what is going on in everyone’s hearts and minds, while we as sinful humans do not and are not in a position of judgment. Jesus, to the contrary, told us not to judge others, not to call others names, but to treat others as we would like to be treated. He told us that the measure by which we measure will be measured out to us. It is all there for anyone to see.  It is not for us sinful human beings, then, to decide who is or is not a “snake,” we believe it is for God to decide. We do not call others names, but believe in charity and kindness.

I think my knowledge of Catholic theology is adequate; adequate enough that I do not have to advertise it to everyone. And what I know is that if we talk about our religion but do not live moral lives then we are hypocrites, like the Pharisees who Jesus addressed. I know that I as a Catholic would not be pleased to hear a Protestant call me an idiot simply because I am Catholic, and so I know enough not to call a Protestant names.

This would be true only if religious belief led one to fear death, but quite the opposite is true.  Martyrs have embraced, sometimes even sought out death, because of their “superstition”.  Soldiers have volunteered for suicide missions, assured they would be rewarded in accordance with their religious beliefs.

I’m not really sure how you came to that conclusion. 
I realize that there is no reason for the religious to fear death (yet they do).  After all, that leads to heaven, perfect happiness, and everlasting life, correct? (which really sounds like the kind of thing you would tell a child the first time they asked about dying and you didn’t want to scare the crap out of them)
Fear exists and carefully crafted superstitions can be made to bring imaginary control over that fear.  Fear of death? Invent a heaven—now you never really die. You have cancer? Pray—but god might call you “home” for some special reason.  You are worried about your future? See a fortune teller.  Superstition can, and has, overcome some of the fear.  I say some, because Christians obviously fight for life, even knowing what is waiting for them in their new afterlife.  Human nature? An admission that they don’t REALLY know what is waiting for them? 

Superstition can lead to death, even as it fights fear: Native Americans would bless wood and animal-skin shields to stop bullets from American Troops.  Can you imagine the outcome?  Yet, I imagine they would die by the dozens and come up with reasons why many of their people died to bullets.  Not strong enough in their faith? The blessing was done wrong? There were probably hundreds of reasons.  And, I imagine, they went to their deaths imagining they would be rewarded according to their beliefs.

Fear isn’t just a prerequisite for religion, it is THE reason for religion.  It is the ultimate answer to something we can only wish we had a definitive answer to:  Life after death. 
It’s the “God of the Gaps” all over again, and the one place a god or gods can hide from science.  For some reason people just don’t like having their heaven taken from them. 

- Matt

Positive:

Did you read my statement about St. Paul?  It’s not only Jesus, so your “Jesus is in a position of judgment” argument does not work.

As for my moral integrity, I will let another speak for me—a Protestant by the way—so you can be assured of my good relations with them and that when I call them “idiots” it’s in good humor not murderous threats:

“Bill Michael…[is] a man of outstanding moral integrity, he’s culturally relevant and in-tuned…and he seems to know something about everything. He may be the most brilliant man I have ever met.”   
Upper School Theology Teacher
Charlotte NC

So if my moral integrity is in question, you can ease up now.  That’s from the feedback page on my Academy website.

William writes…

LES -
1.  If the purpose of human life is self-progataion, then does one who does not self-propagate fail to fulfill the purpose of human life?

Yes. In as much as the only literal purpose to life is propagation of life then, yes, that would be a true statement. Not every animal manages to reproduce successfully. This is as true for man as it is any other animal.

Of course, you’ll probably respond that one may self-propagate vicariously through the actual reproduction of others, but that wouldn’t be self-propagation, would it?

Why would I respond with such a silly and stupid argument?

2.  My point about government and politics is that if the government (in America) is simply the expression of society’s wish and you are at peace with that, why have so much negative to say about conservatives, etc?  Why ot just go with the flow.

I never said that government is “simply the expression of society’s wish.” You have this habit of putting your words in other people’s mouths instead of arguing against what was actually said. You’ve managed to jump from “you obviously cannot have an opinion about what a government should do before you can state what the purpose of life even is” to “government (in America) is simply the expression of society’s wish” in one massive leap of logic.

It seems strange to have so much to complain about, when things are just as you believe they should be…human societies deciding what is right for themselves.

Why would that be strange? I am a part of society and thus a participant in society and as such have an interest in contributing to the decisions made. When those decisions are opposed to what I think they should be then I would have plenty to complain about. The suggestion that I shouldn’t is silly. That would only be true if I were apathetic towards society and I am anything but apathetic.

Look at you quote on the front page of your blog: “I still think it’s a mistake to let Lieberman get away with it and it’s a bad sign for how the next four years is going to go if the Democrats can’t grow a pair after all the gains they’ve made.“

What about it?

Why should others be subject to your wishes?

For the same reason I am subject to theirs.

3.  My point about holidays is that I don’t know of any National Holidays celebrated for an atheist or the principles of atheists:  moral relativism, etc.  Why don’t free Americans honor atheist principles if they are so objective and obvious?

We’ve already been over this: There’s no such thing as “atheist principles.” There are principles that a lot of atheists hold, perhaps even a majority, but those principles have less to do with atheism than the individuals themselves.

Would you suggest that the masses are more sensitive to the intellect (faith & reason) than the senses (observation)?  I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

You thought wrong. Humanity has a built-in propensity towards belief. Any of a number of studies over the years has shown this to be true. Irrationality comes naturally to humans.

I am amused that you would lump faith under intellect along with reason. Classically reason and faith are opposed to one another.

4.  It seems that you would have the line between human rights and civil rights to be removed, since they are one and the same, no?  After all, if rights are determined by civil society (not anything intrinsically human), why then maintain the division? Should we remove it?

I think it’s pointless to draw a distinction, but it makes some folks feel better to do so.

How does Abortion fit in to your theory about propagation?  Wouldn’t your reasoning lead us to believe that those who chose to prevent themselves from giving birth would be “the weak”?  After all, the progeny would cease to be.

Also, what about homosexuals?  Aren’t they necessarily “weak” in the grand scheme of things since they can’t reproduce?  After all, you would probably argue that homosexuality has is natural and not willful. 

Two birds, one stone: more people, less need for reproduction. In families (humans and otherwise) - increase in homosexuality with population increase. Not just absolutely, but relative to the population.

It’s been hypothesized that, in tribal groupings, non-reproducers help bring the bacon home for the tribal heads and chiefs, without adding to the burden (non-alpha progeny).

If this hypothesis is right, there’s your regulator. Evolution in action without “strength” or “weakness”.

MATT:

1.  “I realize that there is no reason for the religious to fear death (yet they do).  After all, that leads to heaven, perfect happiness, and everlasting life, correct?”

YES…BUT THAT DOESN’T SUGGEST THAT THEY STILL FEAR DEATH.  I DON’T DENY MENN FEAR DEATH AND THAT MAY LEAD TO A SEARCH FOR A COMFORT, BUT THAT ISN’T EXACTLY WHAT CATHOLICISM IS ABOUT.  I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE ARE CATHOLICS I HAVE SEEN DIE WHO WERE NOT AT ALL AFRAID OF DEATH.

2. (which really sounds like the kind of thing you would tell a child the first time they asked about dying and you didn’t want to scare the crap out of them)

DON’T CONFUSE SHALLOW RELIGIOUS PLATITUDES WITH ACTUAL CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS ON DEATH.  MUCH OF THE STUFF SPOKEN BY CHRISTIANS IS FROM HALLMARK AND NOT THE CATECHISM.

3.  “Fear isn’t just a prerequisite for religion, it is THE reason for religion.  It is the ultimate answer to something we can only wish we had a definitive answer to:  Life after death.” 

AGAIN, YOUR ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH IS BASED ON A DISBELIEF OF THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS THAT THERE IS.  I’M NOT NAIVE ENOUGH TO THINK YOU WILL LOVE THIS ARGUMENT, BUT IF MULTIPLE EYEWITNESS TESTIFY IN WRITING TO HAVING SEEN CHRIST RISE FROM THE DEAD AND 2000 YEARS LATER YOU READ THAT AND SAY, “NO HE DIDN’T…IT’S A LIE”...WHAT CAN YOU SAY BUT THAT YOUR CONFIDENCE IS FOUNDED UPON ASSUMPTIONS THAT SUCH TESTIMONIES ARE, IN FACT, LIES? 

“SCIENTIFICALLY”, YOU CAN SAY NOTHING…BECAUSE YOU DON’T OBSERVE A PERSON DIE AND COME TO LIFE ONLY PROVES THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE BY WHATEVER MEANS YOU HAVE AT YOUR DISPOSAL. 

CAN YOU AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHY, TO THE CHRISTIAN MIND, YOUR ARGUMENT SEEMS UNJUSTIFIABLY SUSPICIOUS AND UNWILLING TO ACCEPT A TESTIMONY YOU CAN’T PROVE TO BE FALSE?  IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE NO LESS ASSUMPTION-BASED THAN MINE, EXCEPT THAT I BELIEVE THEIR TESTIMONY AND YOU DON’T.  IF THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG. 

YET YOU GIVE OTHER SOURCES OF TESTIMONY CREDENCE…WITH NO MORE PROOF.

PATNESS:

1.  I obviously can’t accept assertions with no numbers, come on.  Am I supposed to research everything you say?  The burden is on you to back up your statements out of courtesy to your reader.

2. Okay, a hypothesis. Is that supposed to satisfy me?  Isn’t the hypothesis the beginning of the scientific method?

I don’t understand why you posted that…a conditional based on a hypothesis.

The burden is on you to back up your statements out of courtesy to your reader.

Well, actually, in all fairness, it isn’t just a courtesy. It’s a responsibility - in an even-handed debate.

But this isn’t even-handed discussion of any sort, as long as you continue to demand what you can’t provide. It’s partisan hackery.

At this point, I’m only here to encourage you to think. God only knows why. But I am. There are lots of ways to look at things.

But if you want me to be serious, you have to give me a reason to take you seriously.

Yes, I intended to address the part about Paul. I would simply say that to Christians Paul is a saint, and as a saint he perhaps did not fear being judged by the standards with which he judged others. Jesus mentioned that you should remove the beam from your eye before removing the splinter from your brothers eye, and perhaps Paul had done this. Or perhaps Paul made a mistake; it was a spur of the moment thing, and he took the comment back when he realized he was speaking to the High Priest.

I did not really see humor in the e-mail, and I wonder how Protestants would have reacted, but if you feel comfortable with it then there is nothing else to say.

As for your argument about Jesus’ resurrection; you could just as well say, then, that Muhammad was telling the truth and that the Qur’an is therefore fact. I do not see that that is a valid argument, that we should assume that everything that is written is fact. We can believe it, but it is belief, not knowledge. The Trojan War did not happen the way the Iliad says it did, and if it did then we would have to accept the existence of the Greek gods. And if greater reproduction means that one group is stronger than another, then I suppose Muslims are apparently stronger than Catholics as they apparently have more children.

I don’t think that you have to be a non-Catholic to see that these are not good arguments.

PATNESS:

My point is why bother offering unsubstantiated hypotheses?  They don’t make me think at all.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy the whole “why should I take you seriously?” thing. 

Let’s see some concrete criteria that proves that you think and I don’t.  There have been a dozen posts on this blog that played the “intellectual superiority” card and I am not at all impressed. 

What is the ground for your self-confidence?  That’s all I’d like to know because I think its all smoke and mirrors…grad student talk that has no hands or feet.

Positive:

After lecturing me about judging others, you’re now chiming in on Paul’s motives.  Come on. 

As for the Quran, if I were discussing the life of Muhammad with a Muslim I WOULD give their sacred writings the benefit of the doubt so long as I had no reason to deny the author’s honesty. 

I would most likely object to conclusions drawn in their religion or assumptions on which it is based. 

What upsets me is that critics of Christianity doubt simple testimonies of events with no justification for doing so.  It is not a denial of this assumption or that principles.  It is a denial of the truthfulness of something someone said happened. 

Lastly, Logic and Rhetoric are two separate worlds.  Sound arguments may not persuade, persusasive arguments may not be true.  If the premises are true and conclusions are valid, I am satisified regardless of what others say.  I have honest questons about the premises posted and they go on and on without a shred of proof. 

I’ve been called dumb, primitive, stupid, etc.., but I still have yet to hear on what evidencde the denial of the truth of the apostles’ written testimony is based.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy the whole “why should I take you seriously?“ thing.

Buy? It’s no gambit. You demand evidence that you don’t provide. There’s no incentive.

And there’s nothing to question about that statement. I don’t understand why it’s difficult to comprehend.

Look, I can win a debate if all I have to do is criticise flaws in other people. I get to hide all my weaknesses in the shadow of someone else’s. I learned that lesson very young-like.

You want to win a debate and respect, you influence minds. Change the way someone sees the world. You want to win a debate and alienation, attack them non-stop. Generally speaking, I belong to the former. Generally speaking. I have days when I’m frustrated and I tend more towards using people as target dummies.

There was a guy a couple years ago that I got into a very protracted debate with, and it devolved into a pissing match which terminated with a very literal discussion of “how long can you piss?”. Prime example of this.

You’re welcome to think it’s all smoke and mirrors: I’m not grad, I don’t fit in formal educational environments. I’ve done college twice and, according to conventional standards, failed or dropped out. I have what are known as overexcitabilities: particularly, emotional and intellectual. Things that bug me really bug me, and I need a deep, profound sense of understanding to feel rewarded from my work.

I can’t be spoonfed. Also why I’m not so brief in writing or speaking. In person, I lecture more than discuss. I rely on people willing to interrupt me to discuss tangents.

I’m done school because I’d rather feel rewarded for what I do than get the grades. I need time to draw the line in the sand. I have strong creative drives that aren’t being nurtured, and without that I do get very depressed.

But do I feel bad about any of this? No. When it can be understood, it can be forgiven. I move on.

My ground for self confidence? Because, like it or not, I AM that good. Nobody except me has ever doubted that. I have intimidated my professors. The downside is, when you’re exceptional, you don’t conform.

Schools, jobs, life - they’re games. Conformity machines. Find the optimal strategy - and the game is shaped by its best players in a way that brings greater contrasts to the abilities that made those players great in the first place. The pool becomes more homogeneous, specialized. People get excluded. Chess going from a game with elements of chance, to chess as a game that focuses almost exclusively on memory coherence and rapid recall.

...

There’s a theory of personality called the Theory of Positive Disintegration. I don’t agree with calling it “theory” - I have far more respect for physical theories than that, and frankly, I think TPD is dodgy in a number of respects. However, it has been very successfully (and controversially) adapted to the minds of the profoundly gifted, who tend to show these overexcitabilities more often and more distinctly than most people.

And, in all honesty, years of working with specialists of every variety, trying to figure how I had such a hard time with school… I made more progress with that “theory” in a half-year than with all prior work.

Smoke and mirrors? Maybe. But I have a far more developed sense of self and community context than most people. I don’t always like myself, and there are always new mysteries, so I don’t always know myself either. Sometimes, it’s like my whole life is in question.

But I’m cool with that. I’m clear it’s just part of the process that I call my life. The hardest time to deal with it is when you’re totally submerged in it - as I tend to be with everything I engage.

You understand where I’m coming from?

I find I dislike referring to you by your real name, and so in this post I’m going to pretend your name is “Humpty Dumpty,” because you are clearly broken and no amount of effort from any number of men or horses could fix that.

So, Mr. Dumpty (ahh, taht feels better), you said (in all caps, for some reason):

I SET YOU UP FOR THIS ONE, KNOWING HOW YOU ALL TO ASSOCIATE YOURSELVES WITH “SCIENCE” AS THOUGH IT IS CONTRARY TO CHRISTIAN BELIEFS.

Oooooh snap! Oh shit! Oh no! I been ambushed! Motherfucker done set me up! He gonna show me! Oh shit!

Or not.

A quote mine from an unattributed quote which doesn’t even say what you used it to say? Examine your chunk of the quote:

...we must hang onto our own ideas even in the face of contrary evidence.

In a vacuum, this is clearly wrong. It is stubborn and ignorant to cling steadfastly to your own ideas in the face of contrary evidence. This is not arguable. The whole quote gives context to what the man really meant (if indeed he actually said this; I cannot find that quote anywhere):

“Because science is an adversary process in which each idea deserves the most vigorous possible defense, it is useful for the successful progress of science that scientists tenaciously hang onto their own ideas, even in the face of contrary evidence.“

To a non-moron what he is saying is clear, and not at all what you were saying. You were advocating a dogmatic obsession with one’s own ideas even when evidence has shown them to be false. The good doctor here is saying that when a scientist’s science is challenged, it is good for science for him to fight back, because then the best idea can win out. If the challenged scientist simply caved at the first sign of contrary evidence, we would never know which evidence was stronger and science would be in a constant state of one-upmanship and concession.

But let’s pretend he meant what you want him to mean. Let’s pretend that he means that anyone with an idea should cling to that idea unto their demise no matter how much contrary evidence arises.

Then I would say that, yes, he does have a poor understanding of science. I don’t care about the letters after his name. I don’t care where he works. If someone calling themselves a scientist advocated such strict dogmatism, then I would call them a poor scientist. I am not tied to the words of everyone who considers themselves an authority.

See, you’re the one who believes in universal authority and follows the supposedly infallible dictates of an old guy in a funny hat. Not me. I have no need or desire to take as gospel the words of anyone, no matter how famous or how educated. The same goes for Einstein. Einstein also didn’t believe in quantum mechanics. Should anyone who commits to a scientific worldview therefore dogmatically follow his lead?

Just in case there’s confusion, the answer is “no.” Science is not driven by personal authority. Einstein was brilliant, but that doesn’t mean we should all line up in lockstep behind him.

Or, as Aristotle is reported to have said of Plato’s theory of Forms, “Plato was our friend, but he was wrong, and the truth is more important.”

Science is not a religion. It does not rely on revealed knowledge to extra-special pious authorities who then disseminate the knowledge to us plebeians.

Your lame quote-mine-cum-appeal-to-authority is useless, and your “Gotcha!” moment was pathetic.

In fact, I think it can be safely said that you, Mr. Dumpty, haven’t made a single actual argument since you so rudely thrust your ignorant arrogance upon the SEB community. You’ve done nothing but foist snideness upon us, filling post after double-post with perceived cleverness while offering not a single word of substance yourself. You claim to want equal debate without engaging in it from your side. You claim to want courtesy while treating everyone else with sniveling contempt. You purposely twist the words of anyone who disagrees with you, you have repeatedly shown a lack of respect for the rules of evidence, and you display a tenuous grasp of critical thinking at best.

In short, I think I have fair grounds for judging you little more than yet another pathetic Christian troll, more interested in annoying people with trivia and nonsense than engaging in a real exchange of ideas. As it is my personal principle (but by no means any kind of atheist principle) not to feed trolls, I will no longer be replying to your self-important drivel.

Fuck off, Mr. Dumpty.

PATNESS:

I still am not buying the “I’m too good to conform” line.  TV has trained all Americans to think they are Bill Gates and need not prove themselves before proclaiming themselves geniuses.  “Johnny’s smart, he just can’t answer questions in school.”  Unfortunately, Johnny’s inability to overcome the challenges of school foreshadow his inability to overcome the challenges of life and business.

Atheism is ultimately rooted in an inflated self-confidence that believes that an individual is the ultimate judge of what is true, good, right, etc..  The entire philosophy is a circular argument.  You might say, “The same is true of Christianity.” But it isn’t there is external proof that Christianity is true. It makes claims and fulfills them.

Failures in our own judgment of day to day matters should cause us to doubt our ability to answer the greatest questions of life through human raason and observation alone, yet atheists go right on choosing the assumptions that seem good to them based on….what seems good to them.

What happens is they lost among the trees and can no longer see the forest.  Everything becomes jumbled together in a massive irrelevant mess.  This is what atheist interpretations in science does. 

If atheism was true, hen atheists would be the happiest, most fulfilled and admirable people on earth.  They would be free from whatever shackles punish the superstitious masses of foools clinging to am imaginary hope that doesn’t exist.  But this isn’t the case at all.

Good Christians hold that title, without question.  Of course there are miserable people who claim to be Christians, but the sources of their troubles are usually easy to understand. 

I’m happy to say I don’t have the struggles you do, and I do not believe it is coincidental. 
The Scriptures teach that God blesses those who walk in His ways and curses those who oppose them, and I believe that when all is said and done, this is the ultimate argument for Christianity.

I strive, I mean strive, to live a humble, faith-filled life, and I am richly blessed:  loving wife, beautiful children, wonderful friends, peaceful home, healthy body and a heart that is at peace.  This is precisely what the Scriptures say will happen and I am not an isolated example.

“Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways!  You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you.  Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.  Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.”

Despite all the cocky talk and pseudo-intellectualism, I would wager than NO atheists can say they enjoy such a life.

Let that be my final answer.

Why should we believe the “eye-witness accounts” in the Bible? Do you believe the “eye-witness accounts” in all novels? Fiction is fiction. Period. And, please look up the “reliability” of eye-witness accounts even in court. Only a skilled lawyer can convince a jury of the truthfulness of any accounts, all circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Now, that YOU believe those accounts is purely up to you and you can live your life with that belief up to the point where you MAKE me believe the same. Some fundamental muslims believe the U.S. is evil. That’s fine up to the point where you try to kill all of us, thank you.

TV has trained all Americans to think they are Bill Gates and need not prove themselves before proclaiming themselves geniuses

You can look up the work of Michael Piechowski on this one - he’s considered the foremost expert on the application of this theory to the field of Gifted Education, and there’s little research in the field that doesn’t cite his work as a primary source.

Whether you believe it or not, it does happen. It is also related to why, as I have said previously, there is a higher incidence of neurosis’ in so-called gifted individuals. Additionally, there are several entirely valid and concrete explanations for the psychology behind why such individuals can, and do, go on to underachieve in their life, all neurosis aside. The issue, as has often been said of ADD, is to find these people an environment that accommodates this.

Superman is the same way: he acts like a freak (he likes to jump over tall things), he can’t shake a hand, or walk by a bathroom, or stare at you too long, and god forbid he ever get hit by a car: you’ll need the jaws of life to get the driver out. The solution is not to bind him, blind him, and tell him to shut up.

Try going to a crisis centre sometime and talking to the people who work there: I’d bet money a disproportionate amount of the clients are people of highly unusual skills and talents - because these very traits lead them to the eccentric behaviors that get them into trouble in the first place.

Atheism is ultimately rooted in an inflated self-confidence that believes that an individual is the ultimate judge of what is true, good, right, etc.

No, mine is firmly rooted in that me understanding that I DO matter in the world, and that I do bear effects on the world around me that I AM responsible for, is the root of my atheism.

My inspirations for leaving Catholicism, were people like you. Again; you can stand in a blizzard naked and pray for mercy, or you can bundle up. We both would. In principle, I don’t know whether a god exists. In practice, I don’t care. In practice, we both do the same thing. I just happen to be the only one being honest with themselves about it. My sense of integrity means more to me than my desire to live in a world of feel-good fantasy.

If atheism was true, hen atheists would be the happiest, most fulfilled and admirable people on earth.

Well, you know - if pompous people didn’t come knocking on our door, degrading us for not sharing their silly fantasies, threatening us for disagreeing, and condemning us with the pseudo-sympathy that goes with “I’ll pray for you”. It’s all nice if you share their views. If you don’t, as you have proven, then these people can act like real dicks just to appease their insecurities and sense of self.

You accused me of being smoke and mirrors, sir, but I think you protest too much.

I strive, I mean strive, to live a humble, faith-filled life, and I am richly blessed

You’ve never been to a jail, have you? Confirmation bias: take a look at all the believers who don’t have nearly as much as you. Yes, you can say Mother Theresa was all that and more - she ended up with almost nothing. So I wouldn’t relate your faith filled life and your faux-humility to your family. God didn’t bang your wife; you’re not that special.

Despite all the cocky talk and pseudo-intellectualism, I would wager than NO atheists can say they enjoy such a life.

No doubt you would, if only because you’ve dismissed criticism beforehand, except to deal it yourself. You only came here to soothe your ego, and again, it’s you that’s in denial of that.

I have no problem being egotistical: but again, at least I’m being honest with myself.

AKUSAI:

Sad.  Now I’m pretending to quote scientists because you can’t find the reference and if YOU can’t verify it…it must be fabricated.  Try page 12 of the article the first “Fact”. The article in on his own page at Caltech, not buried in some secret Vatican archive as you probably have suspected.

Your rationalizing of his words seems to miss the fact that the “contrary evidence” may be APPARENTLY contrary evidence..for centuries.  Scientific knowledge is constantly changing…what confidence do you have that you even know what the “consensus” (sic) will be in 200 years? As much as revolutions have come and gone, they will continue to come and go.  People who boast of the support of science are fools, pretending they don’t see the instability and constant changing of scientific knowledge.  To pretend that different intrpretations of available evidence are all impossible and that only yours is right is ignorance of the nature of the information you’re dealing with.

The bottom line is this:  Atheists are miserable human beings.  (Prove me wrong.) Why?  It is impossible for an atheist to enjoy the blessings of life:  peace of mind, love, joy, friendship, steadfastness, consolation, hope, security, etc.. Why?  Because God is the sole source of all these things.  You simply can’t get them but from Him.

You can hope in science, or government and tell yourself the day will come when God’s blessings will be handed out by the state, but you will never see it happen.  Food? Maybe.  Clothing? Okay?  Happiness?  Never.

This is the ultimate test of God’s existence:  His ability to miraculously and perpetually fulfill all that He has promised.  For over 4,000 years the earth has been filled with men and women able to testify of God’s care and provision for them.  You deny this, and cut off your own life supply.

LEGURU:

Fiction normally intends to be known as fiction.  When someone writes (as St. John did), “These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in His name.”  the author is not offering up a novel for entertainment.

When an author says (as St. Luke did), “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.”

If you would actually read the Bible before you dismiss it all at the recommendation of your atheist gurus, you would see the impossibility of your lazy arguments.

There is no hint anywhere that the gospels are fiction or intended to be fiction.  There purposes are explicit and deny your suspicion.

Fuck off, Mr. Dumpty.

There is no hint anywhere that the gospels are [FACT] or intended to be [FACT].  Their [FABLES] are [ALLEGORICAL] and [WHOLELY CONFIRM] your suspicion.

Fix’d.

AKUSAI:

You pretend all is wrapped with your great scientific genius and superior reasoning skills and finish with childishness.

Where is all the atheist reason?  The great evidence that contradicts the Christain faith?  It’s in your head, that’s where, and only there.

You all boasted of your answers to everything a “True Believer” could say, and in the end your calling names with not a response. 

From the self-congratulatory ramblings of Patness, to your cursing, what does anyone have to say?

As I expected, the science quote embarrassed you because you thought you and your imaginary “science posse” could gang up on a Christian whose views are perfectly harmonious with all true science.

I’ve answered every post and have hardly had a response other than personal attacks, assumptions, ungrounded claims, and imaginary data.  I’ve answer questions of Bible contradictions, history, extra-biblical evidence to the life of Christ..and have got nothing back but arrogant assertions.

Rational community?  Let the posts be the judge.

Rational community?  Let the posts be the judge.

We agree on something.