Brooks,
I think that in closing out our discussion, we are finally coming to the
heart of the matter. I appreciate your acknowledgment that we are looking
at the same issues and seeing them from two different perspectives. For a
while, I was beginning to think that you could not even see that there was
another perspective.
The place where we still disagree is that you believe that my perspective
is totally irrational. I, on the other hand, think that a rational person
can decide that there is no God and still be thinking rationally at the
time. I would not agree with their conclusion, but that does not make that
person irrational, or to put it more delicately as you would, their
analysis of their existence irrational. Given the scope of the claim (there
is no god) and the limited amount of hard scientific data, I can't say with
absolute, irrefutable certainty that your belief, or you, are irrational.
I have found your distinctions in this irrationality issue to be weak,
because you cannot be both a fully rational person and make completely
irrational conclusions. If the kettle is black, let's call it that. If I
think that you are clinging to something that is totally absurd and lacking
in any rational thought, you are being irrational. In the scope of a
discussion that is centered on that issue, you are irrational to me. You
may only be irrational when it comes to that subject, but you are
irrational none the less.
In order to determine that someone was irrational, it would require a very
conclusive body of evidence. There are some matters of science where it can
be fairly simple to show that a person is not rational in their conclusion.
If a person believes that the world is flat, the data that can be presented
to disprove their conclusion is overwhelmingly convincing. There are other
matters of science where this is not true. If a scientist concluded that
evolution was a law of nature, he would be hard-pressed to prove to the
rest of the scientific community that, in fact, evolution is a law of
nature and not simply a plausible theory. The body of evidence is not
complete, conclusive or entirely in agreement. And since the theory itself
indicates that significant evolutionary changes take many thousands of
years to millions of years, it may be destined to remain a theory forever.
Likewise, the evidence for Christianity is not irrefutable. It cannot be
proven through the traditional methods of science. Sure, science can help
prove that Biblical events took place, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt
and not without skeptics disagreeing about the validity or significance of
a particular finding. Christianity is a faith, not a science.
Just as there is not enough evidence to prove evolution as a law of nature,
there is not enough evidence to prove Christianity beyond a shadow of a
doubt. Likewise, it is not possible to totally disprove the existence of
the Christian god. You, yourself have said that you refuse to be put in
this position, because it is an argument that cannot be won (your actual
claim is that it is the Christian's responsibility to prove existence and
not yours to prove non-existence). Instead, you argue against the
reasonability of Christianity.
I should point out to you that the Christian can't present the kind of
evidence that you demand. Put in their place, you couldn't be successful
either, but since you are placing yourself in the position of the person
requiring the proof, you hold the ace trump at all times. Whenever the
Christian falls short of irrefutable proof of their position (always), you
can simply lay your ace and say, "Once again you fall short."
You have said that unlike me you do not misrepresent my beliefs as I have
done with your position. I hope that you understand that by refusing to
accept my statements about what I believe and simply restating your honest
understanding of what you know to be true about Christianity, you are, by
your actions, invalidating my beliefs. If I said to you that I honestly
believe that all atheists hate Christians and view them as evil. They teach
this to their children. I believe that all atheists have an inferiority
complex that is centered around the Christian belief that God will send
those who choose not to believe in Him to Hell, how would you feel about my
decision to view you this way? Because of this irrational inferiority
complex, all atheists have projected their frustration to a tangible being
(Christians). The atheist's frustration results in a misrepresentation of
what Christians believe. All atheists falsely believe that Christians hate
them. I'm not saying that atheists are irrational or demented, it is only
that that their beliefs are. They have been brainwashed to a degree.
You do not agree with this view. Even if I held it honestly, you would
protest my decision to view you, not as an equal, but as a brainwashed
person who believes in something that is demented. Once I assert this view,
nothing that you say is of any value in a defense of your understanding of
the truth. It comes out of a mind that has been brainwashed. It is the
presentation of demented beliefs (not you now, just those beliefs you keep
expressing). You can't help it, you were brainwashed.
By lowering you to this level, I won't even allow you the convictions of
what you believe. I simply state that I honestly understand that all
atheists really hate Christians. They don't seem to understand this, but
they all hate Christians. Since I have not been brainwashed and I do not
have a belief in a demented system that views Christians as hateful toward
atheists (and how sick and demented it is to believe that a group of people
whom you have never met hates me), I have the right to ignore what you say
and keep asserting my honest understanding of how things really are. You
have the right to your dissenting opinion, but since you are brainwashed, I
will just say, "You are entitled to your opinion." and dismiss what you
say.
Before I close this out, I would like to respond to a few things that you
said. You brought up the comment that I made about you deserving to go to
Hell. I said, "What makes you so special?" What I was referring to here was
that I already knew that you understood the Christian belief that those who
choose not to believe in God will be sent to Hell. My suggestion here was
that since you already know this to be true, why should you be exempt? I
did not mean to infer that I believed that you deserve to go to Hell for
having an opinion that differs from mine. What I was saying was that if
the nature of Hell is that those who choose not to believe in God are sent
there by God, then everyone who chooses not to believe in God will end up
in Hell. I was just pointing out the nature of God and Hell is not subject
to what I believe about you deserving to go to Hell. I think what bothers
you is that since you don't acknowledge God's existence, you can't
attribute Hell to Him. It must be the conviction of the Christian and
therefore, a human hatred of others who don't think similarly (albeit,
based on brainwashing).
You have stated that you think that I really don't want you to end up in
Hell. I actually have concern for you as you understand me. Isn't this in
contradiction to the idea that I believe that you deserve to go to Hell for
choosing not to believe in God? Isn't it in contradiction to the idea that
as a Christian I find you evil and deserving of Hell? Why, then, would you
continue to assert that I believe this? Is it because of what I wrote in
the paragraph above about God not existing in your view?
We don't disagree that I worship a God who I understand will put those who
choose not to believe in Him in Hell. I fully understand this about God.
This belief is absurd to you. I am not denying my belief. I am not denying
that you think it absurd. The problem begins where you come to the
conclusion that only a brainwashed person could believe in something so
absurd. If my God is that absurd, your website would provide irrefutable
evidence that God does not exist and that He is not the creator of all
things. He is not omnipotent or omniscient.
You can't do any of these things on your website and that makes your
approach seem very arrogant to me and I'm sure many other Christians. If
you are only trying to say that Christianity is absurd to you and show why,
your site is very effective. If you want Christians to find it useful as a
place where their doubts can be answered, so that you can help them, I
don't think it will work very well for you. You have stated that the
purpose of your site is to help Christians. I am a Christian. I have
questions that I am open to entertaining, but your site did not welcome me.
Instead, it insulted me. I'm not trying to get you to stop trying to reach
Christians. I think people should search for the truth. I work in
marketing. If my target market says that I am not reaching them, I would be
wise to change what I am doing or I won't have success reaching my
customers. You don't have to take my advice on this issue, but I have spent
considerable time expressing it, because I think you have some valid issues
that don't ever get aired with your intended audience.
Lastly, you had asked me to consider your position. You said that if you
believed in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) and that the IPU (very
creative, ...your own idea?) would eternally torture everyone who chooses
not to believe in him, how would I feel if you believed in the IPU and I
did not? If there was a significant body of information (similar to
Christianity) to suggest that there just might be an IPU, I would examine
the issue. If I was not willing to accept that the IPU existed, I would
understand that if I was wrong that there would be serious consequences.
Although I disagree with the believers in the IPU, I don't have enough
evidence to dismiss them as brainwashed or their beliefs as demented. After
all, if the IPU is really the creator of all things, do I have a right to
question his actions? I would say not, otherwise his elevated status as
creator is removed by his mere creation.
If I stretch and say that the IPU is so totally absurd that there is no way
that a rational person could believe such utter nonsense I would have no
option but to view those people who believed in the IPU as mentally ill.
This is consistent with psychiatry. If all sane people believe something to
be false, it is considered false. This is a very hard conclusion to make.
the doctors of psychiatry are careful not to draw conclusions in their
observations. If they have a patient that reports that they see a pink
unicorn and it is dancing around the room, the doctor is going to write
that the patient reported seeing a pink unicorn or that the patient
appeared to be hallucinating. He will not report that the patient saw a
pink unicorn or that the patient was hallucinating. If the point of your
comparison of the IPU to God was to show how absolutely absurd a belief in
God is, it either falls short (the belief is not absurd enough) or I am not
sane.
I really didn't expect to hear back from you last time, but if this email
sheds any additional light on our interaction, please feel free to keep
writing.
Matt
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <XXXXXX>
Received: from rly-xe04.mx.aol.com (rly-xe04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.196]) by air-xe04.mail.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILINXE43-0211161022; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:10:22 -0500
Received: from blank.com([000.000.000]) by rly-xe04.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXE47-0211160958; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:09:58 1900
Subject: A point of agreement
To: Tekministry@aol.com
From: XXXXXX
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:09:53 -0600
Message-ID: <OF3ED50763.670BB3D6-ON86256B5D.004BC80C@>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on (Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at
02/11/2002 03:09:58 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii