Matt,
YOU: "The place where we still disagree is that you believe that my perspective is totally irrational."
I think your Christian beliefs are irrational. You are probably perfectly rational in other areas of your life.
YOU: "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 think rational people can accept Christian claims because of compartmentalization. People can be perfectly rational in other areas of their life, but where their religion is concerned, people tend to rely on faith rather than reason.
YOU: "I would not agree with their conclusion, but that does not make that person irrational,..."
I think that Christians tend to be irrational when it comes to Christianity. I do not think Christians are necessarily irrational in other areas of their lives. As I stated before, I have relatives who are Christians, and I do not think they are irrational people, except when it comes to their religion.
YOU: "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."
I think people who are otherwise rational can make irrational decisions. I have made many irrational decisions myself, but I don't think of myself as completely, totally irrational.
ME: "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."
Anyone who makes a positive claim has the responsibility to demonstrate the validity of that claim. If I claimed that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, I would have the responsibility to provide the evidence for my claim.
YOU: "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.'"
If the "evidence" that Christians present to me does not appear credible or relevant to a particular claim, and does not hold up under further examination, I will have no choice but to discard it. I don't understand what you are objecting to.
YOU: "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…"
Again, I accept that you believe what you believe about Christian claims. I just don't share your belief IN them.
YOU: "…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."
"Invalidating" them to who? To you? Are your beliefs that weakly held? I could similarly say that when you state what you believe, you are invalidating MY beliefs. : )
YOU: "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?"
Have I ever said that all Christian hate atheists?
Anyway, I would consider this your opinion and I would think it was a mistaken opinion. Maybe I would tell you as much. Maybe not.
YOU: "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.?"
Again, if that is what you believed and you wanted to express it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might dispute it, but I respect people's right to express their opinions.
YOU: "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."
Did I ever state that I honestly think all Christians hate atheists?
Anyway, if you believed that all atheists hated Christians, that would be your opinion, and you would have the right to express it. I might dispute it, but I would "allow you the conviction of what you believe."
YOU: "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.
Again, did I write that all Christians hate atheists?
In any case, what is your point? Am I not allowed to express my beliefs?
YOU: "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."
You are entitled to your opinion. ; )
Seriously, though, what is the real problem? You have your opinion and I have my opinion and they are not the same. Do I have the right NOT to agree with your opinion?? Do I have the right to express my opinion?
YOU: "My suggestion here was that since you already know this to be true, why should you be exempt? …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 don't know "this to be true." I do not believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Jesus, angels, devils, eternal life, salvation, the Virgin Mary, miracle resurrections, healing of the blind, walking on water, talking snakes, talking donkeys, the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, water into wine, the feeding of the multitude, etc., on and on. I believe in none of it. I don't see any evidence for these things being true. It is not my "choice" not to believe in these things. I can no more choose to believe in these things then I can choose to believe that two plus two is equal to five. Your efforts to characterize skepticism as a "choice" is clearly intended to shift responsibility for Hell away from God and onto the shoulders of unbelievers.
YOU: "I think what bothers you is that since you don't acknowledge God's existence, you can't attribute Hell to Him."
And here we see, again, how our views differ. It is not that I don't "acknowledge" your god: I do not believe in your god. I do not believe that it exists. I do not believe in Hell either.
I think your God is every bit as real as Santa Claus.
YOU "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?
No. Christians think EVERYONE is inherently evil and deserving of Hell. The distinction is this: You would like to convert me, but you believe that if I don't convert before I die, this means that I "choose" Hell and that I deserve it.
YOU: "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."
It is very difficult to prove a negative. It is very difficult to provide "irrefutable evidence" that some nebulous entity like "God" does not exist. But that is not my responsibility anyway. The person who makes the positive claim is responsible for demonstrating the evidence for that claim, not the skeptic. In any case, I think I do show that Christians promote claims which are contradictory, uncorroborated, and highly absurd.
YOU: "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 you studied a religion's claims and its "significant body of information," and found that it was impossible for you to believe the religion's claims, would you then feel that you deserved to be tortured for eternity because of it?
YOU: "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."
I think otherwise rational and intelligent people can believe in absolutely absurd ideas. I think these people compartmentalize irrational beliefs, protecting them from critical scrutiny.
I am sure you think Mormonism and Hinduism are utter nonsense. Do you think all Mormons and Hindus are mentally ill? What is your opinion of those who believe in Allah, and who think you deserve eternal torture in the Muslim hell? Are al these billions of people mentally ill?
Anyway, you quite obviously () have a problem with the ideas and opinions expressed on my site. You have suggested changes to my site, alterations that I might put in place in order to make it more acceptable to you. I do appreciate your suggestions, but I have no plans to follow them at this time.
Have a good one.
Brooks