Les,

I think many of these True Believers[tm] tend to not realize just how many times we’ve gone through these arguments.  They don’t know how jaded we are with the whole “Let’s debate a Believer!” schtick.  We can try to answer all of these fine questions, but I think we all know the person asking isn’t actually interested in those answers—they are simply looking for an opening to spew their own brand of mythological non-sense. After all, don’t we already know, verbatim, how the conversation will go?
I say skip the email dialogue and just call the guy.  I bet he sounds a whole lot less pompous in person.  Oh, but definitely record the conversation for us, we’re interested in our hero’s struggle.
Good luck,
  - Matt

Les,

Nicely put. Very concise and clear.

It’s funny how these dogmatic people (not just Christians, but people of every flavor) have some expectation that others must justify their positions. In politics, yes. But everyday people like you and I cannot go through life explaining to everyone who comes along why we hold our beliefs. We would never get anything else done!

Maybe you just need to direct his attention to the de-conversion blog on wordpress.  They answered all those questions and more.

He demands proof Les, proof!  Bury that son of god for the rest of us.  It seems that out off all the loons that I’ve ever dealt with, it is always the Catholics that give the most lip service.  He makes a nice bandwagon statement in there, and a bit of strawman in the beginning and hey look a few other sophist tactics in there too.  Should be a fun ride if you still can stomach these guys.

Apparently he is a professional intellectual, so you might want to keep on your toes.  Runs an interesting “school” of genuine classical education.  Site for you consideration: http://www.classicalliberalarts.com/introduction.htm

I know this is Les’ battle, and he’s doing quite fine, BTW. Nevertheless, due to Mr. Michael’s condescending characterization (read: name-calling) of the members of SEB as a “little pond of idiots,” I am compelled to respond on my behalf.

My questions to Mr. Michael are quite simple:

1. How does debating my opinions with someone whose beliefs are obviously contrary solve anything? Please explain how such an exchange would prove to be fruitful, and more than a mere debating exercise. Is there a clear goal here?

2. I do not know you, Mr. Michael. We are not challenging one another in a political arena and we are not competing for the hearts and minds of anyone. It is quite likely I will never meet you. Therefore, why would I wish to expend my time and energy discussing my personal opinions with you? What could this possibly accomplish?

3. What do you hope to gain if I were to put my cards on the table and offer my opinions? Do you honestly believe that you have the persuasive powers to convince me that those beliefs are wrong for me? Are you that arrogant to believe such a thing could happen?

Just a few practical questions Mr. Michael may wish to consider from a member of this “little pond of idiots.” I know you are reading this blog. I’m all ears.

I think we’ve all seen this tired argument before.  To me I like to the pose the following in retort: “If we knew with 100% certainty that a Christian god did exist, why continue living? Heaven is so much better right? To me there is less purpose in living with a god than without one. Knowing that all I have is this life I attempt to spend everyday fruitfully and make my life count for something.”

Arguing with those already embedded in religious thought is pretty difficult. I would prefer to have a discussion with those in the middle ground.

Arguing with a TB™ is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. You get pretty muddied up and you soon realize the pig likes it. It becomes a lose-lose situation. If you find a TB™ with an open mind, chances are he was not really a TB™ to begin with. My experience has been that a TB™ refuses to be confused with the facts because his mind is already made up. Lots of luck, Les, and I’ll be subscribing to watch the fireworks.

1) What is the purpose of Human Life?
In the ‘grand scheme’ of the Cosmos, None.  The universe no more notices you than you do an ant or a mayfly.  Humans therefore have to define a purpose for themselves. 

In 200 years time most of us will have no effect on others- you will be a name on birth, death and marriage certificates, and 8 or so census. Some- Beethoven, Shakespeare, Hitler, Newton, Darwin- will live on through fame, either for what they did, or what the discovered so allowing others to do (Newton didn’t invent gravity, he described something that happened anyway, yet much of physics is based around his work, even where modified and corrected).

For the rest of us we live to survive- to eat to live, procreate and nurture the offspring to adult hood, and once another generation is assured, to die.  The best we can achieve is to ‘do no evil’, to hope that we left the world a better place than we entered it.  There is no reason to do this other than empathy (see 3 below)

2) What makes a day or event greater than any other?
Only Human association with events that day.  Some days are remembered for human acheivement, though even then the assignation is somewhat haphazard- why celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday, and not William Wilberforce?  Other days- the holy-days you refer to are a deep seated human need.  A mid-winter festival is common for those in high latitudes, and predates Christianity in most modern cultures.  It’s dark, its cold, there is no crops or fruit, and the last of the fresh meat is about to go bad- why not use all that fresh food up in a celebration of humanity- shaking our fist at the darkness and saying we will stand together another winter at least. And while we’re about it, light big fires to give the Sun a hint what his job is.

3)What is the starting principle from which you define human rights?
You’re assumption is that only a god can give rights.  Why?  All the rights anyone on this planet has are those granted by those who have power over the piece of land they are standing on.  Grind up the universe to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest mesh, and you will not find one ‘natural right’.  No right is self evident EXCEPT within the sphere influenced by humans.  Every right given or taken away in the name of a supernatural being, is given or taken away by humans, and enforced by humans.  Every rule is enforced by humans.  Every act of evil is perpetrated by humans, every act of kindness.

Why are we kind?  Empathy.  You give because you understand the suffering.  Failures to empathise are considered socio-psychological disorders.  How do we teach kids to be good? Through fear (of punishment)  and empathy- “How would you feel if…”.  The difference between the though patterns of a pre-pubescent child, and a post pubescent teenager shows a growth of empathy, and an ability to see that there are times when rules inhibit a fair outcome- the difference between Law and Justice.  One study posed the question “A man’s wife is really ill, and he can not afford the medicine- should he steal it?”.  10 year olds mostly answer-“No, stealing is wrong”, where a 16 year old will examine the rights and wrongs, weighing up the theft against the life, exploring other solutions.

Empathy is a survival trait, one that is now discussed as evolutionary.  It places the tribe ahead of the individual, ensuring the best chance for the birth of future generations.  The successful tribes, the ones who’s descendants survive, are the empathetic ones. 

So, yes, you are right.  With out a God there is no reason for us to exist.  We are an accident.  We may be alone in the vastness of the universe- the sparrow flying for a brief second through the king’s hall on a winters night, before and after us only darkness- but that is no reason to give a god the credit for every act of kindness you do.  When you help a stranger take the credit yourself.  Do not fear a being that no-one has reliably seen or met.  If you can look your conscious in the eye in the small hours of the morning and not regret then that is the best we can hope.

Well said, Last Hussar.  100% agree.  Probably too much for William Michael to comprehend without gibbering, throwing a fit, and pointing at his fairytale-ology in exasperation.  But well said.  Pearls before swines…
- Matt

Last Hussar, that is just really damn good.

Here are some questions I bet you will struggle to answer in a positive way.

Silly when questions infer not only that there is a theological correlation, but that there is only one right answer.

What is the purpose of human life?  You obviously cannot have an opinion about what a government should do before you can state what the purpose of life even is. 

Obviously….

What is the starting principle from which you define human rights?  I’d like to understand how an atheist concludes that humans have any “rights”.  The idea of a human right assumes that (a) there is a law higher than that of the individual and (b) that right is evident to humans in general, not in particular.  What exactly do you believe those rights are and what is your justification for them?

And of course there’s only one answer/basis that you’ll accept, right? Religion. How about basic civilization and societal constructs, which have after all been around a lot longer than the invention of religion.

Again, refutations are a dime a dozen, demonstrations are the proof of reason and truth.

Demonstrations of opinions?

Bah.

Great post Hussar.

As I expected, you suggest that my logic is flawed, but provide no reason for your criticism other than your opinion.  That kind of dumb response is what I meant when I said you should leave the little pond of idiots and put up some real reasons for your views—-which you obviously think are important enough to post on a website.  Your too acustomed to picking on the little girls, like Georgie Porgie…”when the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away.”

Urgh…(twitch)...gah…guh….MOTHERFUCKER!!! COCKSUCKER!!!!

LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “YOUR” AND “YOU’RE”.....GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! 

I’m So smarter than your Les!  I know your going to just get all bitchy and cry about it!

WHY DO THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO BE SO ILLITERATE!?!??!?!

Thank you for that wonderful piece, Last Hussar. That is pure poetry. I might have to print that out. Seriously.

The main thing to remember from this is the fact that Mr. Michael is in the education business. It is his job to shape impressionable young minds into something consistent with his deep-seated beliefs. I assume that also reflects the desires of the parents of these students, and that those parents are willing participants in this. As such, it is their prerogative as parents.

But simply because Mr. Michael is in this business of indoctrinating young, impressionable children, does not mean that his goals will be successful when applied to us. While most of us here have a common thread, we still have our own differences. Those of us on SEB are not some monolithic bloc of misguided people who will drop our deeply-rooted beliefs because of an artful bit of argumentation by some religious person with a Rutgers education.

Make no mistake: Mr. Michael is in the evangelism business. It doesn’t matter to him if his subjects are little children or adults. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have no doubt that Mr. Michael is a highly intelligent, articulate person. I might even go so far to say that he sincerely means well. However, I believe that he lacks the maturity to accept that not everyone he encounters is going to be receptive to his dogma. I think he would be delusional to think for a minute that debating any one of us will compel us to “see the light” as he sees it. He is going to find much disappointment and frustration in life until he finally realizes the fallacy of this.

We are not wrong in our values. The values we embrace are simply different than those held by Mr. Michael. We are secure in those values and they are an integral part of each one of us. And that is what seems to eat at him the most. Perhaps he sees us as a challenge or a “case study” for his own whim. Mr. Michael is young and naive. With maturity, perhaps he may find that tilting at windmills is a losing strategy.

Oh shit, I almost forgot! With all this talk of religious indoctrination, I neglected to mention that we’re coming up on the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown Massacre. (I think it was 11/18/78.)

And by the way, those people drank Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. But the term “drank the Kool-Aid” persists as an idiom, much to the chagrin of the folks at Kraft Foods.

As an intellectual exercise to amuse your latest blowhard Troll, here’s my tuppence-worth, Les:

1.)  What is the purpose of human life?  You obviously cannot have an opinion about what a government should do before you can state what the purpose of life even is.  I would love to read your answer to a question like this.  Again, not you picking on other people’s answers, but something of your own for consideration.

Government is a purely social construct that attempts to allocate access to resources and regulate human behavior.  A social construct has absolutely bupkis to do with the purpose of life.  Plato’s philosopher-King never existed and likely never will.  Tyrannies attempt to define that purpose as a means to their own ends; the most benevolent of democracies recognize its definition as the perogative of the individual.  To presuppose that a definition of the purpose of life is a requirement for a definition of government is purely nonsensical.  Mental masturbation, if you will, on the part of your correspondent.

2.) What makes a day or event greater than any other?  After all, to set a holiday as a day of rest from other activities, or to recognize one event over another, implies that one is more significant than the other.  What exactly is this system of ranking events in the mind of an atheist?  Also, if holidays are intended to be celebrated in common, what would be the link that bound these groups together?  Or would there be as many holidays as individual

In one form or another, all holidays are rituals in a cult of the self, whether the “religious” admit it or not.  In our time, no one celebrates when a kid is born out of wedlock.  More to the point, being “born in a barn” indicated a distinct lack of social grace, at least in my family.  And these days, it’s usually the freethinkers who fuss when a tyrannical government executes the politically inconvenient.  My, how “Christian values” have changed in the twenty centuries…  Like I said, “cult of self.”  Try having Christmas without presents or Easter without candy or handing out canned food to the poor and homeless instead of gorging and falling asleep watching football on Thanksgiving.  Lemme know how well that goes over with your family…

3.) What is the starting principle from which you define human rights?  I’d like to understand how an atheist concludes that humans have any “rights”.  The idea of a human right assumes that (a) there is a law higher than that of the individual and (b) that right is evident to humans in general, not in particular.  What exactly do you believe those rights are and what is your justification for them? 

In a nutshell, when your Mom said that you were special, she was right.  But, then, so was everyone else’s Mom.  More to the point:  If the span between birth and death is all there is (and ever will be) to our existence, how much more precious is that time than if Earth is merely the staging ground for Eternity?  When you live, day in and day out, with the knowledge that your every action has consequences for other human beings (each of whom has as much right to their time on this planet as you), you understand the burden of not being a theist.  You don’t have the luxury of imagining that wrongs will be auto-magically righted in the afterlife.  You have to live with the consequences of your actions, possibly for the rest of your life.  No higher power is necessary than that—and I’m not convinced that it could place a higher obligation on one if it were.  Is it any coincidence that fundamentalist Christians have higher divorce rates than any other group?  Or that atheists are demographically under-represented in prisons?  Bottom line:  Those who accept both sides of the freedom of non-theism don’t expect someone else to clean up
their messes.  Religions with the concept of an afterlife, on the other hand, childishly dodge any temporal responsibility with the rationalization that they just have to convince God that they’re sorry and He’ll do the heavy lifting.

They keep getting crazier and crazier, but anyhow don’t forget to reply I want to see how long you two can go back and forth (or until he stops replying) anyways it should turn out interesting.

Replying just to get the emails.

Great posts Hussar and Cubicle.

Urgh…(twitch)...gah…guh….MOTHERFUCKER!!! COCKSUCKER!!!!

LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “YOUR” AND “YOU’RE”.....GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! 

WHY DO THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO BE SO ILLITERATE!?!??!?!

Tee hee.

*note to self-you can use naughty words here*

people of every flavor) have some expectation that others must justify their positions

I have to agree - conversation with my mother a couple of nights ago included “well, then you go find the hypothesis so that we can test for God, and then I’ll show you he exists”.

She couldn’t understand why I was frustrated, nor conceive that I’d heard all of her arguments before.

What is the purpose of human life?

Ask a particular human and they’ll tell you. I want to express myself freely. When I can do that, I’m going to express myself in practical ways.

Also, there’s no necessary relation between purpose of life and government. We can still have opinions on government, despite this.

What makes a day or event greater than any other?

Flatly speaking, this statement implies that atheists can’t have good days or bad days. Wrong.

Besides, nobody needs an excuse to celebrate, but we’re usually good for taking one.

What is the starting principle from which you define human rights?

Humans. Doesn’t matter; there are no rights. There are the privileges you fight for and privileges you keep. If there were rights in the absolute sense, we’d all have them and there’d be no dispute. It’s a purely human issue.

refutations are a dime a dozen

Of course - because where you go demanding explanations from other people, it doesn’t matter if you’re wrong, does it?

Yes, nice work, Hussar and cubiclegrrl.  I’d just like to add my spin:  that “human rights”, along with morals and laws, are an evolved entity, and consist of the uneasy balance between our genetic heritage of looking out for Number One, but also behaving nicely to family and friends, with the admixture of those regulations necessary to build society.  Human rights are the recognition that we don’t want societies like those of social insects: the individual has worth.  But they don’t exist in a vacuum or in the mind of God: they are evolved constructs.  That’s why they are so fragile, and must continually be defended.

“As I expected, you suggest that my logic is flawed, but provide no reason for your criticism other than your opinion.” He got you there, didn’t he. Since his email didn’t actually contain any logic, he’s right to criticise you for calling his logic flawed. Though I do think that he protests too much. After all, he is demanding that you provide counter-arguments for his groundless assertions.

Chiming in late. It’s just another conceited wanker.

He starts out with a straw man—namely, that atheism purports to have answers to questions it doesn’t claim to. He then moves forward with an attempt to shift the burden of proof (“Again, refutations are a dime a dozen, demonstrations are the proof of reason and truth.  State your ideas positively”). It’s a methodology we’ve seen time and time again:

a) I claim that you can’t answer this question.
b) I can make up an answer out of thin air.
c) Therefore, I win.

He is right that Les calling his first missive tortured logic as an opinion and not formal proof, but the master baiter misses the simple fact that this is indeed an, um, opinion.

Regardless of this, whether or not atheism has answer to the questions he poses doesn’t establish the merits of his own beliefs—hey, that’s a false dichotomy right there. That’s already three fallacies committed by the master baiter; four if you include the repeated ad hominem. There’s not much there there, is there?

I’ll amuse myself and answer the questions, though.

1) There is a purpose to human life?

2) Holidays have no special meaning to me. At most, it’s an occasion to remember something or to stimulate the economy by buying gifts or a day off work. Call me a curmudgeon.

3) The idea of human rights assumes a right giver. Therefore, I am not persuaded that human rights exist, but we should pretend anyway in the spirit of the non-neocon version of the Golden Rule.

Les, before answering, consider this :-

Is someone who believes that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, likely to be accessible to logical argument?

Don’t waste your time!

Ask Mr Know-it-all if my priest is correct:

My priest advises penance over Obama vote

Because apparently its one of those doctrinal questions that drives people (Catholics) crazy.

Not me, of course. I meant Catholics like him and my priest.  (((sigh))) And no, I’m not off topic, because he is giving “life” as his erstwhile reason, just like Mr Know-it-all here. 

I realized while all this is happening—my priest is trying to get rid of us (the liberals in the parish)—and this is his bullshit reasoning for doing it. 

Anyway, cheerio and all like that, thought I would add my 2 cents.  Tell Mr Know it all to call my priest and tell him how wonderful he is… he’s made Fox News and NPR just since yesterday!