Putting a Fine Point On Atheist Arrogance

53 Responses to “Putting a Fine Point On Atheist Arrogance”

1. Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am

   This reminds me of a shirt I once had.
   It said, “WELCOME to the center of the universe”. I loved that shirt.
   But then’ maybe I’m missing your point???….lol
    

2. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 8:25 am

   While the paradoxical statement is amusing in itself, I am doubly amused because it illustrates that atheists don’t really understand the arrogance of their views.

3. Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

   Yeah. How arrogant we are to think we are just another biological advancement in the evolutionary cycle.
   The stupidity in your statement is astounding jon.

4. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Atheists are arrogant because they claim to have all knowledge past, present, and future to say that there is no God.

   Secondly, atheism is arrogant because the doctrine of atheism critizes faith while exalting science.  Science is not only less reliable than faith, but faith is used in science.  Since atheists cannot possibly verify every scientific discovery, they choose to have ‘faith’ in scientists.  Additionally, they have ‘faith’ only in the specific scientific viewpoints that advance the atheist agenda, rather than scientists that have provided evidence for the existence of God.

   Atheists believe science is purely objective while believing faith/religion is subjective and therefore inferior.  Science relies on objectivity, yet human (otherwise known as subjective) beings interpret objective data subjectively. 

   So, Renshia, the arrogance doesn’t just come from “we are another biological advancement in the evolutionary cycle”

   To clear things up, it is the stupidity in YOUR statement that is astounding.  Your method of discovering truth is to call people that disagree with you stupid, Renshia.  I think that, more than anything, illustrates the arrogance of atheists.  Thanks for helping to demonstrate my point. 

5. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

   Atheists are arrogant because they claim to have all knowledge past, present, and future to say that there is no God.

   You’ve made this statement before and I’ve addressed it. We make no such claim. We ask for evidence. When we get some, we’d be perfectly happy to re-assess your claim for god’s existence.

   Secondly, atheism is arrogant because the doctrine of atheism critizes faith while exalting science.  Science is not only less reliable than faith, but faith is used in science.  Since atheists cannot possibly verify every scientific discovery, they choose to have ‘faith’ in scientists.  Additionally, they have ‘faith’ only in the specific scientific viewpoints that advance the atheist agenda, rather than scientists that have provided evidence for the existence of God.

   Atheists believe science is purely objective while believing faith/religion is subjective and therefore inferior.  Science relies on objectivity, yet human (otherwise known as subjective) beings interpret objective data subjectively.

    

   You have a deeply profound misunderstanding of science/the scientific method. You also apply faith – believing in something without evidence – to science which is the exact opposite – development of theories based on evidence.

    

6. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

   You’ve made this statement before and I’ve addressed it. We make no such claim. We ask for evidence. When we get some, we’d be perfectly happy to re-assess your claim for god’s existence.

   You’ve addressed it by admitting that in fact there may be a God while simultaneously ridiculing others for believing there is a God.  Which is a pretty weak way of addressing it. 

   You have a deeply profound misunderstanding of science/the scientific method.
   No.  You have a weak interpretation of what I originally wrote.  Atheists have faith their is no God, in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Theists have faith there is a God, in addition to, or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

7. Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

   Jon the statements you made are stupid because it is made in ignorance.
   I am confident because I can present evidence to back up my claims. I am also humble enough to alter my opinions based on the evidence, which invalidates your statement that

   Atheists are arrogant because they claim to have all knowledge past, present, and future to say that there is no God.

   We claim nothing of the sort, Why do you always regurgitate this same old garbage?
   Can you produce some evidence to back up this statement???
   HA HA HA…. just kidding I know you can’t. Don’t you worry about it.
    
    

8. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   Renshia – from your perspective, the statements I make are stupid.  From my perspective, the statements you make are stupid.  You have not presented ONE bit of evidence to back up any of your claims.

   I don’t need evidence to “back up” that statement, because the statement itself is true.  If you want to disprove it, it is you that needs to present evidence.  Since you can’t do so, you just say “why do you regurgitate garbage?”

9. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

   You’ve addressed it by admitting that in fact there may be a God while simultaneously ridiculing others for believing there is a God.  Which is a pretty weak way of addressing it.

   I have already defined myself as an agnostic atheist, in addition to explaining that we will likely never know if a deistic god exists. I have also said that I am must less agnostic with regard to a personal god. Again, I ask for evidence that I can weigh if you want me to change that stance.

   Jon, you seem to want it both ways. You pester about us knowing it all so, when we say we don’t know it all, you say we are inconsistent. There is nothing inconsistent with saying we believe something when there is no evidence to believe otherwise and that we would change our belief if you’d provide a shred of reality-based evidence.

   You argue in the same circle over and over and over. We make no claims to ultimate knowledge – you do.

    

    

10. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Mark – When you say that I “want it both ways”, I am pointing out to you that you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say that people that believe in a God are delusional, while simultaneously stating that you don’t know if their is a God.  If you don’t know if there is a God, you can’t say that people that believe in God are delusional.  You would have to say that you know there is a God to say that others are delusional.

    Additionally, when presented with reality based evidence, you disregard the evidence because it doesn’t point to the conclusion that you want to have.  The historicity of the bible is reality based evidence.  Nature is reality based evidence.  Personal accounts are reality based evidence.  Archaeology is reality based evidence.   There is a lot of reality based evidence that you reject.  Its your loss if you want to reject that evidence, but it is extremely silly for you to call others delusional at the same time.

11. 40yearoldatheist on September 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    The quality and quantity of the so-called evidence you cling to is extremely weak – especially in the face of what the other side can demonstrate. That’s why I can reject it and still call you delusional.

12. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Actually, I think if you examine a brief list of men who have contributed this “so-called evidence” even you, despite your desparate atheism, would have a difficult time belittling the quality and the quantity of their contributions.  These men are not regarded as delusional: Albert Einstein, Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Sir Francis Bacon, Nicholas Copernicus, Franciss Colins, and William Lane Craig.

13. Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    The historicity of the bible is reality based evidence

    This is so not true it is sic, it also proclaims your ignorance jon. I would bet you could not come up with historical pieces of evidence for these three pieces of biblical history.
    1. The garden of eden.
    2. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
    3. The Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt.
    Take the last one for instance, 40 years wondering around the desert, Must be some evidence… Nope.. nauta… nothing…
    To back my point it is a lie with evidence, (sorry I won’t loan you my books, but) I will point to sources. that present the evidence that

    A growing volume of evidence concerning Egyptian border defenses, desert sites where the fleeing Israelites supposedly camped, etc., indicates that the flight from Egypt did not occur in the thirteenth century before Christ; it never occurred at all.

    Niels Peter Lemche (b. September 6, 1945) is a biblical scholar
    And this one. This article contains references directly back to the researches that did the work. With a little googling you will see their evidence.
    False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible’s Claim to History.
    Follow the evidence to see where it goes.
    IT ALSO SEEMS YOU HAVE LIED

    You have not presented ONE bit of evidence to back up any of your claims.

    In other posts I have also left you links to evidence of my claims, or at least to reliable sources that could forward you to this evidence. Please if you are just going to ignore the efforts made to present you with the evidence at hand, do it BUT DON”T LIE ABOUT IT.
     
     

14. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    Exodus
    Eden
    Sodom

    Renshia – Any links you previously presented cannot count as real evidence given their insubstantiality.

15. Renshia on September 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Like I said jon they will direct you to the places where that evidence is provided. We probably live thousands of mile apart. What am I supposed to do come there.
    See this is you just being a troll. Good bye jon. From this point forward you no longer exist in my world.
     
     

16. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Yes.  You dismiss me, just as you dismiss God.  But dismissal from your world doesn’t mean that we don’t exist at all.

    Thanks again for offering up another wonderful illustration.

17. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”. Just havin’ some fun with ya, Jon.

18. Tech Tony on September 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    Why did anyone bother replying to this troll?  They weren’t trying to debate the post, but instead just insulted it.
    I think the signage is brilliant.

19. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Clever as always, Mark.  Sharp as ball bearing.

20. Jon on September 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Sharp as a ball bearing.  Hehe.

21. 40yearoldatheist on September 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    ar ar ar.

22. Nick on September 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am

    I like Jon – He’s funny.

23. Jon on September 9th, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Thanks Nick – Your ridicule is very encouraging to me.

24. Teleprompter on September 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Jon:
    “Science is not only less reliable than faith, but faith is used in science.”
    Did I miss the science Crusades, the science Thirty Years War, or the science Spanish Inquisition?
    How reliable is your faith, exactly? Are you a Christian? What kind of Christian are you?
    If you’re a Catholic, you may believe that your god directly revealed himself to a line of men who frequently embodied corruption, nepotism, and hypocrisy.
    If you’re a Protestant, you’re already admitting that your faith is not 100% reliable, because why would there need to be a Reformation if faith is generally reliable?
    If you’re Orthodox, how do you explain the abundance of Protestants and Catholics if faith is so reliable?
    If you’re any kind of Christian, then how do you explain the plentiful and confusing abundance of contradicting interpretations of the same exact sacred texts?
    You think faith is reliable? The wise walk by sight, not by faith.

25. Renshia on September 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Good quote  Tele.
    Reminds me of this one:
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell
    

26. Jon on September 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    How reliable is your faith, exactly?
    Very reliable.  What type of answer do you expect here?

    Are you a Christian? Yes.

    What kind of Christian are you?
    One that believes in Christ.  That’s what Christian means.

    If you’re a Catholic, you may believe that your god directly revealed himself to a line of men who frequently embodied corruption, nepotism, and hypocrisy.
    Correct.

    If you’re a Protestant, you’re already admitting that your faith is not 100% reliable, because why would there need to be a Reformation if faith is generally reliable?
    Incorrect.  A reformation demonstrates the reliability of faith.  People got it wrong – faith prevailed through that wrongness.

    If you’re Orthodox, how do you explain the abundance of Protestants and Catholics if faith is so reliable?
    How does the abundance of Protestants and Catholics indicate faith is unreliable?

    If you’re any kind of Christian, then how do you explain the plentiful and confusing abundance of contradicting interpretations of the same exact sacred texts?
    Probably the same way that anyone explains the plentiful and confusing abundance of contradicting interpretation of ANY text, sacred or not.  Can you give an example of a particular interpretation of a text that bothers you?

27. Teleprompter on September 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Sure Jon, I can give plenty of examples of differing Biblical interpretations that bother me.
    Here’s an easy one: what happens when you die?
    What happens when you die if you don’t “accept Jesus”?
    Who gets to go to heaven? Does hell exist? Is there annihilation or is there eternal torment?
    Next: are the days of creation in the Genesis account literal or figurative? Is the flood account of Noah literal or figurative? How do you determine what is allegory and what actually happened?
    Next: how do you reconcile the portrait in 1 Corinthians of “a god of love” with the actions in Deuteronomy and Joshua, obliterating hordes of women and children?
    Next: How are God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit related?
    Next: How much are people saved by faith, or by works, or both?
    I can keep going. Each of these questions has been interpreted differently by many groups of Christians. If the Holy Spirit aids Biblical interpretation as Christians claim it does, then why are there so many messy interpretational conflicts between sects?
    Yes, there will be confusion over the interpretation of any document, but I’m  not claiming that there is a Holy Spirit of Science which is actively helping well-intentioned people clarify the meaning of experiments or theories.
    But Christianity claims divine assistance. Isn’t it suspicious that all of these well-meaning people who claim to have help from God in figuring out the answers can’t come to the same conclusions? It’s almost like there’s no god helping them at all – just a bunch of humans trying to figure out things for themselves.
    Is that “very reliable”? And yes, before you come back and tell me that “science is also only a bunch of humans figuring things out for themselves”, first think about what science actually is and why it is: it’s reliable because it corresponds to evidence obtained competitively. Science is cutthroat – people are trying to contradict current understandings, and successful scientific theories withstand the test of time and the severity of scientific criticism, and if they don’t, they are continually modified.
    What does faith do? Where is your “Holy Spirit”? It looks like there’s nothing there.

28. MJ on September 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    I have a few questions for you Jon. If faith is the basis for you belief, how do determine whether it’s true faith or false faith or misplaced faith? And how would your faith be different if you were born in a different area of the world say Afghanistan? And what do you say to the other religions who look at you as infidels, non-believers, etc.? Using their faith that you’re wrong and they’re right. They’re every bit as sure that they’re right as you are that you’re right. What test do you use of faith – because from your discussions you don’t dfifferentiate between faith – you just assert that it’s better than science – so really faith doesn’t vary from religion to religion. And I ask these questions in all earnestness in an attempt to understand not as ploys to trip you up.

29. Jon on September 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    @Teleprompter – You didn’t give any examples of differing biblical interpretations.  You gave examples of questions that people ask about life and about religion and belief systems.  I would be glad to talk about either the questions that you ask, or about biblical interpretation, but we can’t talk about one thing while saying that we are talking about another.

30. Jon on September 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    @MJ – If you recall my initial statement, my point is that atheism is an inherently arrogant position due to the nature of knowledge.  Faith-based belief systems do not have that specific problem (though they may have others), because faith-based belief systems allow for divine revelation. 

    You start one of your questions by saying “if faith is the basis for your belief”.  However, I didn’t say that faith is the basis for belief (although it may be for some).  Above, I am pointing out the differences and similiarities between faith as a component of a belief system and science as a component of a belief system.  You are correct that if all you have is one group of people saying one thing, and another group of people saying an opposing thing, it is difficult, if not impossible to decipher who is correct.  However, that is not all we have.  We also have texts, history, and the physical world, to name a few.

    I appreciate you asking questions in earnest rather than ploys to trip me up and I hope that we can all have a desire to learn from each other about the various belief systems rather than simply trying to prove each other wrong.

31. MJ on September 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    So the same things could be said about the Koran (Islaamic) and the Talmud (Jewish) and the Vedas (Hindu). The holy texts of other religions also have historicity as a common feature. What makes you so sure that yours is right? And yes I saw your distinction about arrogance but from what I’ve read on this blog, the people talking seem to say that there is no empirical proof of God and there is empirical proof in saying there is evidence that the human brain is structured to have a God Delusion. So I’m curious because my definition of arrogance is a belief that you are right and others are wrong – and so the thing is I’m wondering how people reconcile that. Thanks for indulging me by the way.

32. Paul on September 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    Jon,
     
    Spicy Thai (sort of) stir fried zucchini
    
    Ingredients:
    Zucchini (Duh!)
    Shallots (or your choice of onion)
    Garlic
    Lime
    Asian chili sauce or paste
    maple syrup (if you don’t have any maple syrup, any kind of sugar will probably do – I just like to substitute maple syrup everywhere sugar is called for because it tastes so damn good)
    sesame oil
    peanut oil

    I cut the zucchini in to sections about two inches long, cut those in half lengthwise, and then sliced them to get pieces that were rectangular (about 1×2 inches) instead of round. Just my own little ideosyncrasies about cooking; I dislike round slices. Never mind.

    Thinly slice shallots and garlic. In a pan, put a drizzle of sesame oil and a couple of tablespoons of peanut oil (if you’re alergic, substitute your own light oil of choice). Heat the oil on medium-high until a drop of water sizzles then add the garlic and shallots. Stir fry for a few moments. Before the garlic and onions start to brown, add the zucchini. Stir fry until zucchini just starts to soften then reduce heat to medium-low. Stir together juice of half a lime, a little bit of chili sauce (to taste), and about a teaspoon of maple syrup. Pour over vegetables in pan and allow to simmer for a couple more minutes.
    Done! Plate and serve.

    Enjoy!
     
    regards,
     
    Paul

33. Julie on September 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    I like a tasty sounding recipe to break things up. I also liked you’re quote Tele.
    I have a question too,  Jon. I think I understand what you’re trying to say. Believing in Science is having faith that the proof you’ve been provided with is real and there is no God. Which then makes an athiest arrogant because they are assuming that this article by so and so proves their right? Or whatever proof the athiest has. Is that basically right? Way off?
    The only question I have for you is can it not just be considered a choice. I choose to believe this. You choose to believe that.
    The reason the I choose not to believe in God is because of the different evidence I’ve personally looked at. It made sense to me. I’m overall happy with my decision and I generally pretty harmless. So can a person just choose not to believe?

    Again, that’s just me. Take care.
     

34. Renshia on September 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    I saw this today it is a great quote.
     

    there’s no underestimating the value of a good troll to get the juices of the community flowing.

35. Teleprompter on September 13th, 2009 at 12:02 am

    Jon, I think I gave many examples of differing Biblical interpretations.
    Yes, I gave you questions that people have about religion…questions that have different answers which are based on different interpretations of the Bible.
    Different parts of Christianity have far different answers to these questions…how someone answers most of those questions depends on exactly how the Bible is interpreted.

36. Renshia on September 13th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    Thou shalt put thy fingers in thy ears and repeat “I’m not listening, I’m not listening” when confronted with evidence against your faith.
     
    HAHAHAHAHa

37. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am

    @Teleprompter – questions that you believe people may have different answers to are not differing interpretations.  An example of differing interpretations would be the catholic and protestant interpretation of Matt. 16:18.  And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it
    Catholics believe this means that Peter is the rock of the church, and the papal line starts with Peter.  Protestants believe that it is the faith of believers like Peter that is the rock that the church is built upon.

    Simply asking a question is not an example of differing interpretations.  Now, to go further, why would differing interpretations of a document lead you to atheism?  There are differing interpretations of many documents, yet you still believe those documents have authors that exist.

38. MJ on September 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Jon,

    I’m still curious as to why you believe your faith in the Bible is better or worse than someone else’s faith in a different religious faith or even a different denomination. What proof do you use and what proof is sufficient for omeone of a different faith to possess in order to sway you? I’m still waiting for an answer to that question. Thanks.

39. Paul on September 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am

    Whoa! Jon, are you suggesting that the author of The Bible was God; that God physically picked up pen and paper and wrote every word in The Bible? Or that he dictated The Bible, word for word, to someone else who wrote it down? Seriously? You attribute authorship to God?
     
    I’ve got a nice omelette recipe if you are interested.

40. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    MJ – I think part of your confusion and curiosity lies in an incomplete understanding of my position, and the other part lies in your understanding of arrogance.

    First, the object of my faith is not the Bible.  Second, I don’t believe that my faith is better or worse than someone else’s faith in a different religion.  We’ve previously discussed that a lot of the matters at hand are not matters of proof.  Additionally, even using ‘physical’ evidence is not always the best way to approach the subject, because its not a matter of proof. 

    Regardless, in response to what I believe you are getting at, I think we need to first compare theism to atheism and then the various theist beliefs.  In my experience, there is no contest between theism and atheism.  It’s clear that faith is usually more productive than lack of faith.
    With regards to various religions, you take a look at each of them and evaluate.   It’s clear that Islam is not the correct approach, given its proclivity towards pedophilia and terrorism.  Judaism and Christianity clearly share certain beliefs, but I think when examining the situation one can see that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews believed would come, but he wasn’t the messiah that they were looking for.

    Additionally, I’m not saying that all atheists are arrogant, or that there are no theists who are arrogant.  However, atheism (particularly strong atheism) is inherently a position of arrogance, because its conclusion (that there is no God) would presuppose that atheists have all knowledge, past, present, and future, which anyone can see is not the case.  Theistic positions do not have to account for that assertion because of their reliance on divine revelation.

41. MJ on September 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    Jon,
    Thanks for responding. I think if you were to take the extremist portions of any religion, you would be able to make accusations like the ones you did against Islam. Take a look at pedophilia committed by the Christian Priests and Preachers, take alook at the outright hypocrisy of many Christian Leaders including Jim Baker, Ted Roberts, etc. And take a look at the Crusades, and the Cross burnings committed by the KKK. If I were to sum up Christianity using those examples, it would paint a pretty bleak picture. And honestly to judge your religion’s best to the worst of another religion is more typical of propoganda used by the Nazis to discredit anyone they thought “deserved it”. And that to me goes against the very teachings of Jesus, who if I’m quoting righ Judge not lest ye be judged. Would it not be better to lvie the life rather than deal in judgments and platitudes and rationalizations? Why sit there pretending to judge when your words are screaming judgment?

42. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    @paul

    “Seriously? You attribute authorship to God?”

    If you look at the following verses (2 Tim 3:16, Heb 1:1), you will see the bible’s own claims on its authorship.  You may not accept that for various reasons, but I find it hard to believe that you would be shocked that someone who believes the bible believes the bible.

43. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    @MJ - There is no doubt that their are prominent Christian leaders who have done wrong.  No Christian should claim to be perfect.  There is a substantial difference between picking the notable religious that have failed and comparing them to THE primary object of a nother religion.  In other words compare Jesus to Mohammad, not Ted Haggard to Mohommad.  It’s not Haggardianity. 

    I’m not judging one religion’s best to another religion’s worst – that would be what you are doing by picking the worst out of Christianity.

    Finally,  you are not using the ‘judge not lest you be judged’ appropriately.  This reference is to Matthew 7:1, but there is more to the story.  See Matthew 7:2-5.  In short, this section of Matthew is not a free pass which allows others to get away with anything because no one else can tell them they are wrong.  Rather, it is encouraging Christians to judge others fairly, with nobility and honesty.  Admittedly, Christians are not perfect and don’t always do this perfectly.

44. MJ on September 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Thanks Jon. I will point out that I was simply illustrating what you were appearing to do in your response to me – not actually doing anything. Also there were certain things that Jesus did like preach peace and yet he violently chased the money lenders out of the Temple – that could be seen to be a central idea of Christianity – essentially any piece could be taken out of context and twisted to suit the ends of the person.

    Jon, have you actually read the Koran? Have you studied it like it appears that you’ve studied the Bible? Or have you gotten your “meaning” of it through secondary sources?

45. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    MJ – that is an interesting observation.  Are you saying that Jesus driving the money lenders out of the temple could be seen as a central idea of Christianity?  Or that peace is a central idea of Christianity?

    I have read the Koran, but I am certainly much more aware of the teachings of the Bible.  As an atheist, you could fault me for arguing a theist perspective when I am not an expert in all theistic belief systems; however, I think its reasonable that one would have a more intimate knowledge of the belief system to which they subscribe.  One reason for reading this blog and corresponding with others here is to learn more about various belief systems in general.

46. MJ on September 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    I absolutely agree with you that reading the blog is a great way to get tuned in to other people’s beliefs. By the way, I’m not an athiest. I’m a I don’t know whether there is or not and really my interests lie more in getting to know as much about different belief systems.

    In anthropology there’s a neat distinction between different ways of approaching a study of a culture that’s not your own: Etic which is looking at it from the outside and making judgments and emic which is looking at it through the eyes of a believer. Both are valid as long as you make your biases clear and that you’re aware of them. Oftentimes what seems ridiculous from the outside, is to the believers entirely reasonable.

    So I was trying to get your internal viewpoint. Me on the other hand I’m kind of on the outside in that I don’t think you can “prove” or “disprove” whether there is a God or Gods – and really to me this world is full of diversity and I like diversity and variety and feel that diversity and variety deserve respect – that our Bill of Rights’ guarantees those freedoms (and am thankful that we live in a country which allows for variety and diversity).

    So thanks for indulging my curiosity. Take care.

47. Paul on September 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    I see, Jon. You’ve gone back to your circular argument again. The Bible was written by God. How do I know? Well, The Bible tells me so.
     
    Oh, and your comments about Islaam and pedophilia…I nearly spit coffee out of my nose. Pot? Kettle. Kettle? Pot. I’ll let you two get to know each other for a while. I’ll be black – I mean back – later.
     
    No omelette for you.

48. Jon on September 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Paul – I didn’t say I expected you to believe it based solely on that evidence.  I’m not even saying I believe it based solely on that evidence. All I’m am doing is informing you what the bible says about itself.  Perhaps you should read up on what circular arguments are because  you clearly do not have a grasp on them. 

    Secondly, I don’t think you understand christianity, islam, and pedophilia if you think that was an example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Have fun trying to find references in Christianity to where Jesus had sexual relationships with children.

49. Paul on September 15th, 2009 at 6:57 am

    Well, Jon, as you requested, I have done some reading about what circular arguments are, and I cannot see where you think I have been using the term incorrectly. perhaps you could elucidate.
     
    As for Christian pedophilia, I don’t have to go all the way back to Jesus (who may or may not have actually existed). My references are all much more contemporary.

50. Jon on September 15th, 2009 at 8:02 am

    Paul, it should be pretty clear, I explained it my last comment.  I’m not arguing that the bible is written by God because the bible says so.  I’m not making any ‘argument’ that the bible was written by God.  I could, if you would like, but to this point I haven’t.  So, a key component of a circular argument is the argument.  Which apparently you didn’t get from your reading.

    Secondly, there is a major difference between followers or supposed followers of Christianity vs the primary object of Islam.

    If you want to have a discussion, at least make reasonable comparisons.  Its silly to waste time with the meaningless drivel that you keep bringing up, and I know that you have a lot more potential to have a reasonable discussion.

51. Paul on September 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am

    “Its silly to waste time with the meaningless drivel that you keep bringing up”
     
    Ah, common ground. At last we have found something upon which we can agree.

52. Jon on September 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Finally! And what a wonderful building block of common ground it is. 

53. darwin1 on February 1st, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Wow Jon, you really are a deluded & clueless individual. No doubt you are  a dimwitted Creationist / ID er..?
    Ignorant people like yourself really do a disservice to those trying to advance our understanding in the world around us. Read some real science books Jon. Educate yourself Jon. This is the 21st Century Jon. You’re an embarrassment ….!