I recently did a little post responding to some infidels who commented on a post by James Anderson:
An unbeliever (Neil Godfrey) attempted to critique my post:
He's an ex-cult member (Armstrongism) who was raised Methodist. He's so blinded by his reflexive animosity towards Scripture that he sees things that aren't there. In my experience, unbelievers who used to be cult-members are especially hard to reach. The cult is their standard of comparison. They judge Christianity by their former cult. That's the filter. They just can't get that out of their system. They associate Christianity in general with their cult. Their experience as former cult-members nearly sears them for life–although there are a few salutary exceptions.
Yes, slavery is not wrong at all if the system is run by “good people”, no doubt the Christians.
1. In my post I didn't say or imply that slavery is not wrong at all if the system is run by "good people." Godfrey pulled that out of thin air.
One problem is that you can't generalize about the morality of "slavery" inasmuch as there are different kinds of "slavery"–a point I made in my original post. In the OT, there are roughly three kinds of slavery, or ways to become a slave:
i) If you fall into debt, and you can't repay your debts, you can temporarily become an indentured servant. You owe money. You have an obligation to repay it. I don't think that's even prima facie wrong.
ii) If you (a soldier) attack another country, and you lose, you may be enslaved by the winner. That's a calculated risk when you fight another country. If you lose, you have a lot to lose. If a country attacks Israel, and the aggressor loses, there are three logical alternatives:
a) The winner may summarily excute the losers. Put all the enemy combatants to the sword. Is that preferable to enslavement? Would the enemy combatant rather be executed?
I don't think critics of OT ethics regard that as a morally preferable alternative.
b) The losers could be repatriated. Let the enemy combatants go home.
The obvious problem with that alternative is that it gives them a chance to regroup and fight you another day. Some of your own soldiers were already killed when you had to repel the attack. Are you going to let the enemy have a second chance at defeating you? Every time they attack you, some of your soldiers die defending the homeland. Every subsequent attack weakens your defenses.
It's easy for infidels behind the safety of their keyboard to feign disapproval, but as a practical matter, that's not a viable option.
c) By process of elimination, that leaves enslavement. In addition, that's a deterrent to aggressors. They know that if they lose, they will be enslaved. So that's a disincentive to their attacking you in the first place.
As with (i), I don't think that's even prima facie wrong.
iii) Then there's human trafficking. Unlike (i-ii), that's evil. However, Israel didn't create that situation, and Israel was in no position to abolish human trafficking outside its borders. It couldn't very well pass a law banning other countries from human trafficking. How would that be enforced? The offending countries would ignore the law.
So the question at issue is how to react given the status quo. You need to distinguish between an evil situation, and how to act in an evil situation.
Suppose you're in a Nazi concentration camp. That's an evil situation. But you didn't create that situation. You didn't choose to be there.
The challenge is how to act ethically in an unethical situation. You still have moral obligations, even though the framework is immoral. How should prisoners treat other prisoners?
Or say you're a prison guard at a Nazi concentration camp. You didn't volunteer for that role. You were assigned to the job by your military superiors. If you refuse, you will be shot.
What do you do in that situation? Even if you can't avoid being a prison guard, there's a moral continuum. A range of ethical options. You can be sadistic. Abuse your position. Brutalize the inmates.
Or you can try to be fair. Be compassionate. Do the best you can in that situation.
The ANE slave trade existed outside Israel. There's nothing Israel could do to prevent it. But if an Israelite purchased a foreign slave, the slave would be better off with a Jewish master than a pagan master. It's not a good situation. Rather, it's a choice between bad and worse.
iv) Moreover, I wasn't discussing a system run by Christians. The context was the ANE. Does Godfrey think there were Christians in the 2nd millennium BC? The frame of reference was ancient Israel. The Mosaic law. Godfrey's inference about a system run by Christians is blatantly fallacious.
Indeed, the implication is that slavery is a good way to treat people who have been guilty of “misconduct”.
i) Notice Godfrey doesn't attempt to demonstrate that that's the implication of what I said.
I didn't suggest that's a "good way" to treat people. The question is whether it's morally permissible. Shooting a mugger who pulls a knife on you isn't a good way to treat the mugger. But it's morally permissible.
ii) And, yes, if another country attacks ancient Israel, the aggressor is guilty of misconduct. As such, the losing side forfeits the right to freedom. By waging unjust war against Israel, you may lose your freedom.
The Bible’s laws on slavery were designed to “mitigate evil”.
Another example of Godfrey jumping to conclusions. I didn't say that Biblical laws on slavery were designed to mitigate evil. Rather, I said "Some laws simply seek to mitigate evil." That's not a statement about Biblical laws on slavery in general. I don't think indentured service is evil to begin with. Likewise, I don't think enslaving enemy combatants (who wage a war of unjust aggression) is evil to begin with.
By contrast, the purchase of foreign slaves does mitigate (rather than eliminate) evil. It's not an ideal solution. But there was no ideal solution at that time and place. Israel couldn't dictate to other countries that they must emancipate their slaves.
Godfrey is one of those simple-minded critics who doesn't stop to consider the moral complexities of a situation. Doesn't pause to consider the viable alternatives in that situation. He just takes potshots.
Of course. No-one was allowed to beat a slave so severely that he actually died within a day or two of the flogging (Exodus 21:21).
Unfortunately for Godfrey, I anticipated that objection:
Here are some other posts on OT slavery:
The downside of slavery is that “in a fallen world” there is a certain “imprudence” to give non-Christians such powers over another.
Yet another example of Godfrey seeing things that aren't there. Did I say or suggest that it was imprudent to give "non-Christians" such powers over another? No. What I actually said was: "in a fallen world it's generally imprudent to give one person that much power over another."
He's so blinded by his unreasoning animus that he projects things onto the text that were never said or implied.
My statement didn't restrict the principle to non-Christians. It was entirely general.
The worst that can happen, it seems, is that such masters might stop the slave worshiping God.
Once again, he simply imputes that to the text. One the problems with bondage is that a slave must do whatever the master tells him to do rather than what God tells him to do. It's not about worship in particular. Rather, it's about our duty to obey God in all things.
And what sort of god does the Triablogue author lament the slaves are unable to worship?
God is allowed to commit barbaric and genocidal acts because he is God. Only God can kill a baby to punish a parent or snuff out whole populations. Only God can do such things and still be Good and worthy of our worship so that we all willingly submit ourselves to him as his slaves.
Of course, that's a stock objection I've fielded on many occasions.
Dear Sir or Madam, I'd like to say Hello and introduce myself. I don't know where you learned of my background in Methodism and a certain cult but if it was on any source that I have posted you would also have seen that after my cult experience I very happily fellowshiped with mainstream churches -- including liberal Baptists, Church of Engliand and occasionally the RC's. I certainly did not judge them by my cult experience.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I have written several times about the striking contrast between the different types of Christianity. Yes, I do have problems with fundamentalist belief systems but I have also posted a series of articles on the positives I and others have taken from such experiences of our own. Had you read any of my posts addressing fundamentalism you would have seen this. They are easily found via my page introducing myself and in my list of categories of the different posts I have written .
I have, as I said and as you can learn for yourself even acknowledged the good many religions have done for many people and I have never "attacked" anyone for their faith. I have difficulties with the New Atheist approach on this particular score as you surely must know if you made any effort to learn my views from my own words.
So I am very surprised to see that you would portray my psychological state towards religion and the Bible in the way you have here.
I also think you have actually confirmed my original criticisms of your point about the Bible and slavery. Your attempts to repudiate my remarks were merely saying the same thing in more nuanced ways. The end result is the same.
But that's a matter of interpretation.
On my own psychological state and personal background and attitudes towards churches and religion in general I am sure you would in future prefer to write in accordance with the actual facts as demonstrable from my own writings and past experiences I have documented in several places.
Neil Godfrey
Let's see. Out of six paragraphs, you spend five talking about yourself. Sorry to disappoint you, but learning more about you is not my priority. Shocking as this may sound, you're not nearly as important or interesting to other people as you are to yourself.
DeleteYou then have one little paragraph about my rebuttal to your post which has no substance, no semblance of a counterargument. But thanks for illustrating the intellectual impotence of your position the moment it's shelled.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOn the one hand, Neil thinks Steve Hays should treat people better. Such as by not smearing people he doesn't know.
DeleteOn the other hand, Neil smears people he doesn't know. For example, Neil smears Steve's co-bloggers. Neil says "Fundamentalist bigots (the sorts of people who I find write logically fallacious nonsense that I read on this blog and do their damndest to smear people they do not know" even though no one else on Triablogue has interacted with Neil here.
Also, Neil mistakes the fact that some atheists can behave morally with the fact that atheism has difficulty grounding universal objective morality.
DeleteYes, you are fundamentalist bigots because you write hostile comments from the perspective of fundamentalism in ignorance of what you write about. But "Steve" (I presume that the author of the article?) writes falsehoods about me and I am attacked for defending myself.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any issue with grounding a universal objective morality in my life. Where did that come from? You evidently know nothing about me and very little about atheism itself.
Yes, I do make some personal boasts since I am a little proud of what I have done with my life despite some very negative past experiences and bad mistakes. But it's not vain pride. I've been very lucky with my genetic makeup and personal experiences and chance encounters with key others. I have wanted to make a difference to others and help them where they have been caught in the same mistakes I have been. I do take some pride (sorry if that offends you) in being able to do something positive in that direction. I have posted on the details elsewhere if you are really interested.
One of the greatest evils of the evil side of religion is that it robs people of a healthy pride in themselves. Self-respect and natural confidence are interpreted as evil in the eyes of your God. I imagine those who lack these psychologically healthy attributes are driven to hostile judgmentalism of those who have them.
I am not "a good person" in the absolute sense with which you have twisted my words but acknowledge I have good and bad -- and I'm sure you have much good in you, too. I am very, very flawed, but I also have some very good qualities that I have also put to good use. But your God will tell you to find fault and judge me for saying that.
I am dismayed and sadly reminded of the bigoted judgmentalism of my former cult associates when I read comments like these here. You people really are the reason Christianity has such a bad name. You write like minds crippled by the good book -- Fundamentalism really has turned you into sad people.
It is very evident that nothing I can say here will ever be read at face value but will be twisted through the "spirit of God" into something malicious or evil. Such is the mind of the fundamentalist bigot.
Neil
Delete"Fundamentalist bigots (the sorts of people who I find write logically fallacious nonsense that I read on this blog and do their damndest to smear people they do not know simply because the Bible says they are bad people) are far more like cultists than they ever will admit or understand....Yes, you are fundamentalist bigots because you write hostile comments from the perspective of fundamentalism in ignorance of what you write about."
1. I've never interacted with you prior to this thread. But you have no problem smearing me as a "fundamentalist bigot" despite the fact that you "do not know" me.
2. Also, how would you define fundamentalist? I don't consider myself a fundamentalist given what I know about the term.
3. At this point, as far as I can tell, "fundamentalist" to you might as well mean any Christian position which doesn't accord with your atheism.
"But 'Steve' (I presume that the author of the article?) writes falsehoods about me and I am attacked for defending myself."
He quoted what you yourself said about yourself (i.e. "a baptized member of the WCG for 22 years. Before that I grew up in a Methodist family"). How is what you said about yourself a "falsehood"?
"I don't have any issue with grounding a universal objective morality in my life. Where did that come from? You evidently know nothing about me and very little about atheism itself."
Okay, then please go ahead and offer your argument for how atheism can ground universal objective morality.
"I've been very lucky with my genetic makeup and personal experiences and chance encounters with key others."
There have been many people in history and in the present who have "been very [un]lucky with [their] genetic makeup and personal experiences and chance encounters." What does atheism offer to them?
"One of the greatest evils of the evil side of religion is that it robs people of a healthy pride in themselves."
Atheism robs people of everything that's truly important. There is quite arguably no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose if atheism is true. See William Lane Craig's article titled "The Absurdity of Life without God" for starters.
"Self-respect and natural confidence are interpreted as evil in the eyes of your God."
1. I suspect this is what you think Christianity is like given your cultic background. It's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches we are made in the image of God, and as such our "self-respect" as humans is grounded in this verity.
2. By contrast, what value does atheism place on humans? How does atheism ground human value and worth? If atheism is true, why should we "respect" other humans? Check out Peter Singer's secular ethics for example.
"I imagine those who lack these psychologically healthy attributes are driven to hostile judgmentalism of those who have them."
DeleteThis is ironic coming from someone as judgmental of others as you are (e.g. smearing Christians like us as "fundamentalist bigots").
"I am not 'a good person' in the absolute sense with which you have twisted my words but acknowledge I have good and bad -- and I'm sure you have much good in you, too. I am very, very flawed, but I also have some very good qualities that I have also put to good use. But your God will tell you to find fault and judge me for saying that."
Again, I suspect you're speaking more from your cultic past than what the Bible teaches.
The truth is, we do wrong. We do evil. Some more than others, perhaps, or at least in ways more visible than others, but the bottom line is none of us is perfectly innocent.
Moreover, the good we do is quite often if not always tainted good. Sullied good. We are morally imperfect. Morally compromised through and through.
At heart, we're rebels against God. We want to live how we want to live rather than how God wants us to live. My will be done, not yours. That's what we ultimately wish to say to God in our deepest hearts.
The Bible declares God will judge us. All of us. And we will all be condemned if we all have to stand before God as we are on our own.
But the Bible also declares God offers mercy. God offers grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. The Bible promises God's forgiveness to anyone who turns away from their rebellious life, and comes back to God. The Bible promises God's forgiveness for anyone who puts down their arms against God, and returns to him in humility, pleading and trusting the person of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross for forgiveness. There is no other way to peace with God. Only Jesus Christ.
"I am dismayed and sadly reminded of the bigoted judgmentalism of my former cult associates when I read comments like these here. You people really are the reason Christianity has such a bad name. You write like minds crippled by the good book -- Fundamentalism really has turned you into sad people. It is very evident that nothing I can say here will ever be read at face value but will be twisted through the 'spirit of God' into something malicious or evil. Such is the mind of the fundamentalist bigot."
Unfortunately, this probably says more about you than about anyone else here or the comments made here. It sounds like you've been scarred by your cult. That's regrettable. I feel badly for you. However, your cult isn't representative of Biblical Christianity.
Steve, Why not try to be friendly with a stranger. Sure we disagree about the Bible but is that any reason to personally attack me with falsehoods and even more strongly attack me if I try to correct slander with facts the author omitted?
ReplyDeleteI point out that I do not attack Christians and I even defend the good in religion, even in bad religion like yours — and you accuse me of “writing six paragraphs about myself”? Yes, I do see the good even in fundamentalist religion like yours. I have posted many times the details of this.
Sorry if I don’t fit your bigoted stereotype of what an atheist is like. I can understand your hostile judgmentalism.
I believe talking about how people treat each other in the here and now is very important — more so than speculative arguments about how they treated each other in ancient times.
A Christian friend of mine actually attempted to argue that I was not a bad person despite my atheism because I remained strongly influenced in my life and attitudes by the Christian values I had internalized over many years. But you who do not know me are looking for pretexts in my words to attack me.
Fundamentalist bigots are far more like cultists than they ever will admit or understand. Rather than see any good in an atheist such as my Christian friend was able to do they make up motives based on "biblical revelation" and then kick the atheist if he dares try to defend himself.
Happily not all Christians are like you but many of them are very decent people who do not begin their arguments with personal slander against people they do not know. Most Christians I know personally would abhor attacks like yours in which you deplore my effort to defend myself against the lies of an atheist-hating Christian and his efforts to avoid continuind a pointless argument over biblical interpretation.
You, sir, really do remind me of many of the sorts of people I have known from my cult days. Thankfully I see no reason to judge all Christians by your standards.
I presume you are continuing to attack me because I defy the Bible’s claim that I am a bad person in the way you have described. I have to be bad and you have to attack me all the more savagely if my experience and claims defy what you believe about the Bible’s claims.
So let’s see if we can disagree agreeably and not let our past ignorance and bigotry get in the way of a cordial exchange now, yes?
Let’s try to be friendly and let’s try to talk the way I can have cordial discussions with my other Christian friends, yes?
Neil,
DeleteYou say: "Dear Sir or Madam, I'd like to say Hello and introduce myself. I don't know where you learned of my background in Methodism and a certain cult."
On your blog, where the article I responded to was posted, you have an "about" section:
http://vridar.org/about/
That section refers the reader to this:
http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/exwcg/archives/4
Where you say about yourself: "…a baptized member of the WCG for 22 years. Before that I grew up in a Methodist family."
So I got my info straight from the horse's mouth.
And, yes, being a cult-member for 22-years, then becoming an atheist in reaction to your lengthy experience as a cult-member, can certainly give you a jaundiced perspective on Christianity in general, because you use the cult as your frame of reference for Christian "fundamentalism" generally. Indeed, that's exactly what you've been doing in your response to me. You unwittingly prove my point.
I'd add that you're exceedingly hypersensitive. That's another indication that you haven't gotten the cultic experience out of your system.
Evidently, what triggered your hysterical reaction was the title of my post, in which I contrasted "Good Jesus" with "bad atheist." You take umbrage at my calling you a "bad atheist."
If you had any capacity for critical detachment, it might dawn on your that my title was riffing off of your previous "bad Jesus" post. Get it?
You do a post on "bad Jesus," in which you offer a fawning review of the new hatchet-job by Hector Avalos. Your subsequent post explicitly takes the previous post as your point of departure: "Right on cue — following the previous post 'the bad Jesus' — comes a fundamentalist’s defence of Bible ethics."
So the title of my post was a parody of your post. Just follow the bouncing ball. If you weren't so hypersensitive, you could pick up on the literary allusion to your own post. You need to grow up emotionally.
Finally, it's striking that you're so offended by my calling you a "bad atheist" (even though you're tone-deaf to the ironic title), but you have no hesitation about calling Jesus a bad person.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I think what people say about Jesus is more significant than what they say about you. Jesus is a wee bit more important than Neil Godfrey. That must be a big letdown, I realize.
You complain about personal criticism, but you spend all your time defending yourself rather than defending your position. If you wish to shift attention away from yourself, you might try leading by example. You did absolutely nothing to refute the substance of my post.
Hey guys! How about stopping all this attacking of me personally and forcing me into a position of having to defend myself which only stimulates you to attack me more strongly than ever?
ReplyDeleteHow about enough of all this nonsense?
How about we try to talk cordially about the issues? How about being friendly? How about just being a bit nice? You know, civil, cordial, friendly.
You don't have to respond to me as if I have horns, a tail and a pitchfork, you know.
Hi Neil,
DeleteWhat are "the issues" that you're interested in discussing with Christians? Worldview issues? Philosophical issues? Scientific issues? Metaphysical issues? Theological issues?
Just wondering.
Neil, you request cordiality and civility, yet you reflexively brand conservative Christians as "ignorant fundamentalist bigots." It's yet another evidence of how your cultic background conditioned your outlook that you are so oblivious to your own lack of elementary charity and civility. You lack self-understanding.
DeleteNeil, I understand that you prefer nominal Christians to Bible-believing Christians. You prefer Oreo Christians (Christian on the outside, atheist on the inside), like John Spong.
DeleteYou can't stand Christians who share the faith of OT Jews and NT Christians. You can't stand Christians who belong to that continuum. Well, that's the only kind of Christian there is.
Neil,
DeleteDo you know what the gospel is? Could you explain it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCR, that's a good question to ask. Armstrongism has a legalistic, works oriented, system of salvation. People coming out of Armstrongism don't understand the Gospel of Grace. Of justification by (i.e. received through) faith alone on accounted of the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. Or the doctrine of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. It makes sense that since Armstrongism denies the personality of the Holy Spirit that it would have a sub-biblical understanding of sanctification. Armstrongism has a deficient understanding and definition of grace. It's Semi-Pelagian in it's understanding of the will and regeneration and in it's view of perseverance. It has a Galatian Judaizer understanding of the law and the requirement to obey it (including the Sabbath, the Biblical feasts, Biblical kosher laws etc.).
DeleteMoreover, Armstrongism's view of glorification is more akin to Mormonism's view of becoming gods (literally) like the God Family of God the Father and the eternal Word, the Son. Whereas in historic Christianity, humans do partake of the divine nature, but do not cease being finite. That as far as the creature can become like God, redeemed humanity will become. But we never (nor could ever) cease being finite creatures. Or cease being human. The Creator/creature distinction forever remains. Armstrongism teaches people are born again *at the resurrection* and become gods JUST LIKE the Father and the Son so that there is absolutely no difference ontologically or metaphysically. It's a theology of apotheosis (using Biblical texts) which makes Satan's temptation at the Garden of Eden the goal of salvation. Namely, "ye shall be as gods."
Many atheists who were former Armstrongites probably continue to reject Christianity with the assumption that the Bible's teaching of salvation is what Armstrongism teaches.
Also, Armstrongism's view of Christology seems to be a confused mixture of Semi-Arianism, Binitarianism, ditheism.
Neil, I'm an Evangelical now but I was an unofficial Armstrongite for about 4 years (from around 1989-1992). I was brought up party Catholic, partly Seventh Day Adventist. I kind of know where you're coming from. I'm not saying this is true of you, but I know that many former Armstrongites who are now atheists have bitterness toward organized religion, the Bible and the God of the Bible. As well as feeling embarrassed for being deceived for so many years. Deceived to the point of being tricked into giving 10% of their hard earned money to a false organization. I never gave money to an Armstrongite sect because I was too young to have a job. But if I had, I would have been upset too once I discovered the religion was false.
ReplyDeleteI urge you to reconsider the truth of the Bible. Search through the archives of Triablogue.
Read some of the blogposts on my blogs. Especially those from TrinityNotes.blogspot.com where I collected some of the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity.
I've also collected may links to other resources that might be of help. Including:
Book Reviews of Recent Atheist Authors by Christian Apologists
Answering Moral Objections to the Bible
Evidence and Arguments Against Materialism and Naturalism
At the very least, you can't disagree with Herbert's and Garner Ted's oft quoted Bible verse:
Prove/Test all things; hold fast that which is good.- 1 Thess. 5:21
I forgot to also post the link to my blog Sabbatarianism Refuted
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Neil, you request cordiality and civility, yet you reflexively brand conservative Christians as "ignorant fundamentalist bigots."
ReplyDeleteRot. I did not brand "conservative Christians" that way but I did brand you lot that way and there was nothing reflexive about that description at all. I explained the evidence for it -- the string of hostile, ignorant, half-truth and false attacks on me -- and appealed for someone to get over that attitude and actually have a civil exchange. Not one responded with any civility.
Everyone here wants me to change my beliefs but not one person wants to actually engage in a civil personal exchange of mutual understanding.
Yes, fundamentalist bigots all!
Everyone here wants me to change my beliefs
DeleteWhat's wrong with that if we're convinced (rightly or wrongly) you're incorrect in your views and wish you to come to believe the truth? I'd want an atheist to do the same thing for me. That is, if he were convinced that atheism was true and he believed I was incorrect in my beliefs, that out of concern for me he would try to convince me of my errors. You say you want "mutual understanding," then why don't you try to understand the reasons why we think your views are incorrect?
You wrote, "I have wanted to make a difference to others and help them where they have been caught in the same mistakes I have been." If you aren't being bigoted in doing that, why do you call us bigots for doing the same (or similar) thing? You're being inconsistent at the very least (or even hypocritical).
"Rot. I did not brand 'conservative Christians' that way but I did brand you lot that way and there was nothing reflexive about that description at all. I explained the evidence for it -- the string of hostile, ignorant, half-truth and false attacks on me -- and appealed for someone to get over that attitude and actually have a civil exchange. Not one responded with any civility. Everyone here wants me to change my beliefs but not one person wants to actually engage in a civil personal exchange of mutual understanding. Yes, fundamentalist bigots all!"
DeleteNeil, sorry, but a "civil exchange" is a two way street. If you keep insisting on calling others names like "fundamentalist bigots," then at the very least you're equally responsible for failing to conduct a "civil exchange."
"Everyone here wants me to change my beliefs
DeleteWhat's wrong with that if we're convinced (rightly or wrongly) you're incorrect in your views and wish you to come to believe the truth? I'd want an atheist to do the same thing for me. That is, if he were convinced that atheism was true and he believed I was incorrect in my beliefs, that out of concern for me he would try to convince me of my errors. You say you want "mutual understanding," then why don't you try to understand the reasons why we think your views are incorrect?
You wrote, "I have wanted to make a difference to others and help them where they have been caught in the same mistakes I have been." If you aren't being bigoted in doing that, why do you call us bigots for doing the same (or similar) thing? You're being inconsistent at the very least (or even hypocritical)."
No, not at all. I respect the views of others and do not condemn anyone for believing the things I myself once believed. We are all where we are at in our own respective journeys through life. It would be arrogant of me to try to change other's beliefs. I am certainly not interested in trying to convert my very elderly mother to atheism!
I write my posts -- including my bio that steve interpreted and used as if it is the whole sum of my attitude towards religion and sums up the total of my experience -- for the benefit of anyone else who is interested in discussing the questions or questioning their own beliefs and interested in what I have to offer. If they are not, then that's perfectly fine. I'm not going to hound them or harrass them to change their views. What arrogance that would be! I know I myself have changed my views more than once so I know I am not guide for anyone! Who knows where I will be ten years from now.
As for the two way street business -- hang on just a minute buddy. I came here to point out that I had been slandered and falsely accused and tried to set the record straight. I was called a few uncomplimentary things. For my efforts I found everyone out to attack me more viciously than ever -- as if I had jumped into a lions' den. A bigot is someone who shoots first before bothering to get to know his target. That's exactly what you guys have done and I've called you bigots with my reasons fully explained. I asked you to put all that aside and let's be friendly but no, you have to find fault or some way of twisting every word I write so it is interpreted as something evil.
Well, you are obviously blind to your own judgmentalism and inability to see your own arrogance and hostility -- but I have refrained from pointing those things out in hopes someone would respond like a fellow human being. But no -- I have heard a lot about American fundamentalists and now I have experienced you lot I have to admit I really did not appreciate how crude, arrogant, rude, bigoted, and uncivil you you really can be. You really are a time warp from the seventeenth century.
I've done with you -- I've been burned here and won't return, that's for sure.
Neil,
DeleteAs I said above I do feel badly for you in general. However:
1. I'm not sure what to think about watching a fully grown man like yourself be so easily hurt and react so hysterically.
2. This is especially odd in light of the fact that you yourself have hardly been innocent but in fact employed your own harsh words against Christians like us. You can play the martyr card, but the truth is you're no mere victim but victimizer.
3. On a related note, sorry to inform you, but as an atheist attacking Christians like you do, you shouldn't exactly be surprised by return fire.
4. In any case, the solution is easy and straightforward: If you want to debate, then debate. Yet the vast majority of your comments have been all about Neil, Neil, and Neil. How badly Neil has been treated. How badly this makes Neil feel. How upset Neil is. How sad Neil is. How others are so mean to Neil. How "burned" Neil is. And so forth. For future reference, a bit less Neil and a bit more debate would be far better for everyone involved.
5. Finally, if mainstream atheism is true, why should anyone ultimately care about Neil and his welfare? Why should anyone bother to respond to Neil like we've been doing here?
After all, Neil is just another carbon-based lifeform. Here today, gone tomorrow. At most, Neil probably only has a decade or two of life left. Then Neil and everything about Neil will be dead and buried.
Sure, the fellow primates in Neil's life may mourn his passing for some time. But in several more decades they too will be forgotten. A generation replaces another generation.
Ultimately all life on Earth will end if life doesn't make it off-planet.
Although even if life makes it off-planet, it can only travel to somewhere in the universe. But once the universe itself ends, then so too will all of life.
As Richard Dawkins once wrote:
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
If atheism is true, then Neil and all that is Neil will ultimately mean "nothing" as Dawkins has said.
Neil, you're fond of using buzzwords like "bigot" and "fundamentalist." I wonder how you define the word "bigot." Maybe you have an idiosyncratic definition. Merriam-Webster.com gives at least two definitions.
Delete: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance [bold added by me]
I didn't see any unfair hatred or dislike on the part of Christians on this blogpost towards you. We appealed to you using reason, logic and facts. On the contrary, if there's any hatred, obstinacy or unfair intolerance going on, it's on your part towards us "fundamentalists" (as you like to derisively brand us).
One of the definitions Merriam-Webster.com gives for obstinate is:
perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion
So, if there was any bigotry being displayed here, it was on your part toward us. It's a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black." The fact is that we've been more tolerant of you than you've been of us because we're willing to discuss/debate these issues rather than just dismissing you and your (lack of) arguments. While, all you've done is dismiss us (as irrelevant "fundamentalists"), dismiss our facts and dismiss our arguments.
Emotionalism and ad hominem are the calling cards of those without an argument.
ReplyDelete