Ep. 106: Is pro-life compatible with Christianity?

[OzAnt]

Well some people search everywhere for an opportunity to misunderstand, which is why politicians learn to say practically nothing.

And here I was thinking it was 'cause they're nervous they'll get caught out lying 'cause it must get so damn difficult keeping track of what you lied to who about.

OAnt (sic) may think that this sort of political speech is the standard of good communication but I do not.

There's nothing political about it ya wally. But hey, if that's what you choose to think after all the posts I've made on this forum, then I think that's your problem. Why? Because you're the only person who's ever accused me of that. Personally, I think you're giving me too much credit. See, I'm quite capable of missing the point even when there's no ambiguity in the message I'm reading. So, thanks!

I simply acknowledge that communication is a rare occurence (sic) and certainly only when both writer/speaker and reader/listener is actually making some intellegent ([amusingly] sic) effort to communicate --

Good communication can only happen when the listener, in particular, is prepared to really try to understand the speaker; when they try and put themselves in the shoes of the other person, so to speak. And, I've really tried to do that. But (a) I'm human and (b) I make no claim to being a good communicator. All I can tell you is that I passed the unit "Communications 101" at Uni' with flying colours. But as I'm sure we both know, it's a long road from theory to success.

-- instead of playing the kind of self serving game of the reporter looking for anything they exploit.

In the spirit of good communications I'm going to ignore this.

Ant

[OzAnt]

If I found a letter and a pen in a room, I could come up with all kinds of evidence that the pen wrote the letter, like comparing the ink inside to the ink on the paper, or the diameter of the tip to the stroke of the lines on the page. But to me, it's just not enough, or even reasonable to say that the best explanation is that the pen wrote the letter. That's where we get into fundamentally different perspectives on what these explanations mean.

I've been thinking about this metaphor. One of the first things that struck me about it, is how like the watchmaker argument once removed (abstractly speaking), it sounds.

Really, and more correctly in my humble opinion, all that it demonstrates is that atheists in general are busy saying, obviously the pen wrote it whereas theists in general are busy saying, yes, but whose handwriting is it in?

Now, I know you've said it's not a perfect metaphor but I think the problem is that it's a leading metaphor. It's 'leading the witness' because it's obvious to any human that can write that a pen can't write anything by itself. So I think, for as long as you think in terms of your metaphor, you will be rail-roading yourself into a futile mental corner.

So, I propose a fix. Instead of it being a pen and paper you see, how 'bout a laptop? Now you're still free, as a theist, to ponder who may or may not have tapped away on the keyboard. But at least now it doesn't sound so absurd to a theist when an atheist asks if anyone necessarily had to have tapped on the keyboard.

In terms of complexity, it's a better metaphor too because let's face it, the universe is way more complex than anything that a pen could have inscribed on a letter. What program can run on a computer with yadabytes* of memory, on the other hand, is a much more fascinating question. Was it coded by someone or was it self-generated code now isn't an unrealistic question. Importantly, though, it's now a less important question. That said, 'til I have evidence to indicate otherwise, my atheistic mind is quite happy to suppose that it could have been self-generated code (in light of no evidence of anyone ever having sat at the keyboard).

All I'm saying is, think in less limiting ways.

Ant

* An incredibly technical term to denote 'more memory than one can imagine'

[yjoeyh]

I've been thinking about this metaphor. One of the first things that struck me about it, is how like the watchmaker argument once removed (abstractly speaking), it sounds.

Really, and more correctly in my humble opinion, all that it demonstrates is that atheists in general are busy saying, obviously the pen wrote it whereas theists in general are busy saying, yes, but whose handwriting is it in?

Now, I know you've said it's not a perfect metaphor but I think the problem is that it's a leading metaphor. It's 'leading the witness' because it's obvious to any human that can write that a pen can't write anything by itself. So I think, for as long as you think in terms of your metaphor, you will be rail-roading yourself into a futile mental corner.

So, I propose a fix. Instead of it being a pen and paper you see, how 'bout a laptop? Now you're still free, as a theist, to ponder who may or may not have tapped away on the keyboard. But at least now it doesn't sound so absurd to a theist when an atheist asks if anyone necessarily had to have tapped on the keyboard.

In terms of complexity, it's a better metaphor too because let's face it, the universe is way more complex than anything that a pen could have inscribed on a letter. What program can run on a computer with yadabytes* of memory, on the other hand, is a much more fascinating question. Was it coded by someone or was it self-generated code now isn't an unrealistic question. Importantly, though, it's now a less important question. That said, 'til I have evidence to indicate otherwise, my atheistic mind is quite happy to suppose that it could have been self-generated code (in light of no evidence of anyone ever having sat at the keyboard).

Ant,
Thank you so much for seeing what I was trying to say. Your comments show that you follow my point that this is an admittedly flawed description, yet the best one of how I personally see things that I could seem to come up with. That's very refreshing. I'm so used to people looking past those parts and only picking up on bits and pieces to fuel their straw men.
Your observation here is quite good and is definitely NOT a straw man.

Now if I may explain why I don't particularly find your fix a better one, or really as good as the one I gave. It's not so much about the way the letter came to be, but about the personal, self-revealing content of the words. What I'm saying is that I get how some people might not be able to recognize or understand the language, or even be able to recognize some markings on a page as anything other than self-organized patterns, with no intelligent source.

All I'm saying is that I see more than that. I see a personal message. The words are clear to me, just as much so as if I had found a letter from my mom describing her feelings for me, recalling events from my past, and giving me specific advice. I'm saying that although I can't prove to anyone else that these patterns actually are a language that they should be able to understand, I also can't pretend like I can't understand it. There's no way I could do that and continue to be honest with myself about it. For me, it would be turning my back and ignoring my mom's letter, without any justifiable reason for doing so, or for thinking myself delusional.

But there's nothing personal about your laptop idea. Complexity isn't even a factor in what I'm talking about. I have no problem looking at a pattern like a complicated computer program and trying to discern how it came to be... whether by a person, or by self-organization.That's not even the issue, and doesn't really come close to describing why I'm a theist. Nothing about my view limits my way of thinking because I have not put a stop sign to any questions of discovery about nature and reality. It's all still on the table as far as I'm concerned.

[OzAnt]

Hi Joey,

Thanks for noticing that I'm trying to understand. That said, I'm now not so sure I understand your metaphor. Initially you said,

I could come up with all kinds of evidence that the pen wrote the letter, like comparing the ink inside to the ink on the paper, or the diameter of the tip to the stroke of the lines on the page. But to me, it's just not enough, or even reasonable to say that the best explanation is that the pen wrote the letter.

It took me about three reads before I realised that your point wasn't that the pen wasn't the instrument used but that you were rather more interested in who used the pen. Now you tell me that,

It's not so much about the way the letter came to be, but about the personal, self-revealing content of the words. What I'm saying is that I get how some people might not be able to recognize or understand the language, or even be able to recognize some markings on a page as anything other than self-organized patterns, with no intelligent source.

So, if I mesh these two thoughts together, then am I correct in understanding that it's not the fact that a pen can't write on its own that sets off your senses but rather that what you see on the paper that indicates that the pen couldn't have done it on its own? I ask because my first clue would have been... you know... that the pen is an inanimate object...

On the other hand, if it's not about the fact that the pen is an inanimate object, but rather that it's what you see on paper that sets off your senses, then why mention the pen in the first place?

And, just for the record, in my proposed 'fix' the laptop was running (which means you'd be able to see on screen what you'd see in the letter). Granted, to us older generation folk, a letter on paper is more personal than an e-mail... which reminds, me... what the hell are you doing reading letters that you 'find in a room' (and by implication aren't addressed to you)?!? Didn't your momma teach you that's rude? (Just kidding here, in case it's not immediately obvious)

On a more serious note though, I recognise this an emotional appeal metaphor (eg: letter from mum) and I'm okay with that. Even more, I appreciate that you're willing to share your emotions on this forum but I'm just trying, through this metaphor, to try and get a handle on where this emotion stems from (if that's even possible).

Regards,

Ant

[yjoeyh]

I'm now not so sure I understand your metaphor. …
So, if I mesh these two thoughts together, then am I correct in understanding that it's not the fact that a pen can't write on its own that sets off your senses but rather that what you see on the paper that indicates that the pen couldn't have done it on its own?

I might have let some old apologetic rhetoric slip into the way I said it the first time, but that wasn’t where my head was at. The idea was that evidence about the mechanism used isn’t evidence against the only force behind that mechanism. It’s actually not even relevant to that issue of whether or not I can read the message or not, and that’s really what is relevant here.

if it's not about the fact that the pen is an inanimate object, but rather that it's what you see on paper that sets off your senses, then why mention the pen in the first place?

Yes, that’s pretty much the point. I mention it because it is symbolic of the arguments I’m presented with as a reason to dismiss God as the source behind something like a thunderstorm. I know a little about the hydrologic cycle, and how and why thunderstorms form. That doesn’t in any way take God out of the picture in my mind, nor is it any reason to think he had any less to do with it. We get accused of believing in a God of the gaps, and that the gaps keep getting smaller. Christians reinforce that a lot of times by accentuating the gaps where they think “no other explanation could possibly exist.”
To me both sides of that argument are pretty much non-sequitor. The gaps are gaps in our knowledge and, I’m not even sure they are getting smaller, but they are definitely changing. The more we learn, the more questions we have. But in my mind, God does not inhabit the non-gaps any less than he does the gaps.

And, just for the record, in my proposed 'fix' the laptop was running (which means you'd be able to see on screen what you'd see in the letter).

Okay, I didn’t pick up on that part of it. I thought you were just referring to the complexity of the program running on it.

what the hell are you doing reading letters that you 'find in a room' (and by implication aren't addressed to you)?!? Didn't your momma teach you that's rude? (Just kidding here, in case it's not immediately obvious)

Beautiful! I’m glad some people still have a sense of humor around here.

I recognise this an emotional appeal metaphor (eg: letter from mum) and I'm okay with that. Even more, I appreciate that you're willing to share your emotions on this forum but I'm just trying, through this metaphor, to try and get a handle on where this emotion stems from (if that's even possible).

Cool. I’m not really going for an emotional appeal, but I am perhaps talking about it as a relational kind of thing, which I think is really at the core of what I think Christianity is all about.

[OzAnt]

Hi Joey,

Okay, let's leave it at it certainly not being an ideal metaphor

Yes, that’s pretty much the point. I mention it because it is symbolic of the arguments I’m presented with as a reason to dismiss God as the source behind something like a thunderstorm. I know a little about the hydrologic cycle, and how and why thunderstorms form. That doesn’t in any way take God out of the picture in my mind, nor is it any reason to think he had any less to do with it.

You know, not that many years ago, back when, for instance, I saw God in the intricate dance of the bee as it communicated to the hive where to go to collect pollen from next, I didn't see God in a thunderstorm. Back then I certainly thought it possible he could orchestrate one just as much as I thought he could stop the rotation of earth to 'extend time' and ensure victory in battle or raise the dead or otherwise mess with his creation. But to see God in a random thunderstorm, to me is akin to calling God an arsehole because whilst they might be awesome, they're destructive and to this very day kill people. Yet, if God's best design was a world where thunderstorms, earthquakes, cyclones, floods, etc; occur on a regular basis for a creation he loves, then he's either a really really bad designer or an arsehole. They're really the only two options.

Imagine the relief I felt when I finally came 'round to realising he didn't exist! The world suddenly made a whole lot more sense because living in an indifferent world makes sense with what I see/experience. And the relief was being unshackled from that cognitive dissonance; because, obviously I couldn't think of him as an arsehole or a poor designer.

We get accused of believing in a God of the gaps, and that the gaps keep getting smaller. Christians reinforce that a lot of times by accentuating the gaps where they think “no other explanation could possibly exist.” To me both sides of that argument are pretty much non-sequitor. The gaps are gaps in our knowledge and, I’m not even sure they are getting smaller, but they are definitely changing. The more we learn, the more questions we have. But in my mind, God does not inhabit the non-gaps any less than he does the gaps.

Depends what your time frame is. If it's the last few years, yeah, not much in the way of major breakthroughs. But if we're talking the last few hundred years... But sure, I get your point. To you, your god is everywhere, not just in the gaps. You understand, from what I said above, why that would bother me.

Cool. I’m not really going for an emotional appeal, but I am perhaps talking about it as a relational kind of thing, which I think is really at the core of what I think Christianity is all about.

Careful now Joey, you'll make Jesus sad. Remember, he had a really really bad weekend in order to be a scapegoat for your sins.

Ant

[mitchellmckain]

Now if I may explain why I don't particularly find your fix a better one, or really as good as the one I gave. It's not so much about the way the letter came to be, but about the personal, self-revealing content of the words. What I'm saying is that I get how some people might not be able to recognize or understand the language, or even be able to recognize some markings on a page as anything other than self-organized patterns, with no intelligent source.

Whereas I don't think OzAnt's metaphor even goes far enough. The laptop is still just a tool, and thus still leads us to asking who programed it even if we suppose that the display is generated by the computer rather than a human typing something. Furthermore it is a HUMAN tool and that still forces thinking about it to be in human terms. What we are talking about is far more like looking at the clouds and seeing shapes in them and thus asking who put those shapes there.

All I'm saying is that I see more than that. I see a personal message. The words are clear to me, just as much so as if I had found a letter from my mom describing her feelings for me, recalling events from my past, and giving me specific advice.

Ok, but what we are talking about is not a message in a human language with human words and thus it is quite reasonable to suppose that nothing like a person had any part in writing it. Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up and thus it is quite understandable that the atheist does not see anything to support such a conclusion.

[yjoeyh]

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up and thus it is quite understandable that the atheist does not see anything to support such a conclusion.

Yes! That's exactly my point. I don't even see a way to describe the language or how I came to understand it, very much like how I learned English. I don't know how it happened. I don't remember figuring it out. All I remember is people made sounds and I understood them.
I also have trouble understanding sometimes understanding things that seem to come so naturally to other people. No matter how hard I try, I just don't get it.
That's why I don't have any problem relating or understanding someone when they say they don't see the same things I do when it comes to Christianity. I get it and I respect it. It just can't change what I'm able to see and understand.

[JustJim]

Joey and Mitch... and other believers who identify with what Mitch says and Joey agrees with....

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up...

How is that different from delusion or hallucination? I realize that's of no importance to the one who is delusional or hallucinating, but what about to those who aren't hearing/seeing what the hallucinator or delusional person is seeing/hearing? How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way. I'm genuinely curious, and would really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

darn it. accidentally deleted original. Have to rewrite.

How is that different from delusion or hallucination?

There is no objective evidence one way or another. For you to claim this is delusional is even more delusional by your own standard because you have no objective evidence for this claim. And, let the liars distract nobody by rewriting the discussion. Calling someone delusional IS A CLAIM that most certainly IS subject to the same demands for objective evidence.

How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?
...
really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

I suggest you see a mental health professional if you are having difficulty with this.

We have no reason to believe something is delusional unless it contradicts the objective evidence. So if the objective evidence proves nothing either way then such a contradiction simply doesn't exist.

Suppose someone says that they are Napolean. If they explain that this is who they were in a previous life, well then what objective evidence do we have to say that it isn't true. However, if they think this means that they are emperor of France, well then that would not be consistent with the objective evidence that France hasn't had an emperor for 132 years.

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way.

Why should this post be any different than your others. Claims about what you are trying to do gives you no more exclusive right to being nasty than being atheist. I am not trying to be nasty either. But I think it is entirely appropriate to respond to people by the standard that they themselves adopt.

[Keep The Reason]

For important issues, this admission:

Because there is no objective evidence either way.

...compels a rational person to rejct or be agnostic on the issue in question. "I don't know" is as perfectly legitimate a reply as is, "there is nothing to support the contention". This is why most athiests are #6 athiests-- we've looked at the information, and concluded there is not enough to support the assertion, and so we opt to reject it. Bring objective evidence to the table and we'll reconsider that option.

However, to assert that because there is no objective evidence one can adopt the belief in question is merely gambling that it's true. And that's more often than not a deluded position to take.

For you to call this delusional makes you even more delusional, because YOU have no objective evidence for YOUR claim

This claim is above completely off the rails. The non-believer is not tasked with coming up with evidence to disprove the unproven assertions of the believer. The non-believer is merely taking in the information offered by the bleiever, finds it is not supported or lacks credibility, and rejects it. This is the usually argument we have-- that somehow because I cannot prove god didn't create the universe, the theist and I are on equal footing in terms of what is a likely explanation is mere poppycock. The theist's safety net leads to all sorts of "possible" reasons existence exists, none of which are subject to objective evidence, but are clarly running the gamut between most likely to utterly batshit insane.

Let's say 3 people congregate, each having their own view of how existence began. The first is the theist who invokes god. The second is the materialist who invokes natural causation of matter/energy (i.e., the Big Bang). The third offers the following:

"Existence exists because a giant purple creature released a mixture of desires thereby bringing existence to fruition."

Where would we categorize this third assertion? We could argue it's in both the natural and supernatural realm on its face, but also it is clearly just another in a list of endless assertions that could be made and have as much gravitas as any other-- it is, indeed, specious (let's ignore the fact that we can still see the receding heat signature of radio noise from a Big Bang scenario). And #3 is quite bizarre and deluional sounding, isn't it?

So what defines delusional if not the insistence of a position with utterly no corroborating evidence? The only reason the god assertions don't strike us as delusional is because they are so common. But to the ears of someone who has never heard it before, it seems quite likely that the theist and the purple creature asserter would sound almost indistinguishable from one another.

We have no reason to think that something is delusional unless it inconsistent with what CAN be objectively established.

And god can be objectively established... how again?

Suppose someone says that they are Napolean. If they explain that this is who they were in a previous life, well then what objective evidence do we have to say that it isn't true?

Ther utter lack of any evidence that supports the contention of reincarnation or previous lives.

However, if they think this means that they are emperor of France, well then that would not be consistent with the objective evidence that France hasn't had an emperor for 132 years.

Napoleon was ousted as Emperor for a number of years; according to your guidelines, why couldn't he be Napoleon, the Emperor of France, who is now presently deposed having come back from the dead?

I don't think one could draw a more shakey foundation for deciphering what's true and what's fantasy than your perspective; indeed, I doubt you use it in any practical sense yourself, because you seem to be coherent enough to write posts that are rambling stream of consciousness. You just seem to cast a wide and crazy net to have your worldview.

[OzAnt]

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up...

How is that different from delusion or hallucination?

Because there is no objective evidence either way. For you to call this delusional makes you even more delusional, because YOU have no objective evidence for YOUR claim.

Huh? We're not making a claim. Pointing out that we see no objective evidence of your claim is not making a claim.

This is really annoying in my opinion, because Mitch would have us believe that in the following dialogue both of us make a claim:
Mitch "I'm Napoleon"
Ant "No you're not"
and this is not the case. It's simply the shorthand version of me saying,
Ant "We have never seen any evidence of the existence of reincarnation. As such I have no reasonable choice but to conclude that you aren't".

Just thought I should point this out because, time and again, I've seen Mitch turn a 'rejection of a claim' into a 'claim' and whilst I think it's cunning, it's not right.

Ant

[OzAnt]

There is no objective evidence one way or another. For you to claim this is delusional is even more delusional by your own standard because you have no objective evidence for this claim. And, let the liars distract nobody by rewriting the discussion. Calling someone delusional IS A CLAIM that most certainly IS subject to the same demands for objective evidence.

Mitch, I noticed you re-wrote your response since I posted, I presume in order for you to clarify what you're saying.The thing is, you haven't answered the question. Let me clarify, as I understand it, what Jim's saying.

This is NOT the conversation that occurred:
Mitch & Joey “Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern”
Jim “You are delusional”

Rather, the conversation ran like this:
Mitch & Joey “Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern”
Jim “We don't see that person and His intent written in its overall pattern. What's to stop us from placing you in the same category as other people that see things of which there is no objective evidence?”

Ant

[Rian]

Joey and Mitch... and other believers who identify with what Mitch says and Joey agrees with....

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up...

How is that different from delusion or hallucination? I realize that's of no importance to the one who is delusional or hallucinating, but what about to those who aren't hearing/seeing what the hallucinator or delusional person is seeing/hearing? How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way. I'm genuinely curious, and would really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

Jim

I appreciate your note that you're not trying to be nasty. That's a good thing to say if you're going to be saying something that could easily be taken as mean-spirited, and I appreciate that you took the time to say that.

To answer your question: No. From what you've written in your posts, I don't think there's any way for you to tell, at least at this point in time.

Now I don't mean to be nasty either, but I gotta say the best way to describe what I feel is that song verse that says "I once was blind, but now I see." For me, and it sounds like for most Christians here, it's faith PLUS reason. It's like when I was trying to waterski on one ski, and they told me to step over the top of the wave, and I kept saying "but I'm DOING that!!!" ... and then I did it and started skiing on one ski. You think you're doing it before, but then you're really doing it. And it's like if I'm standing by my harp and someone plays a note in another room - the corresponding harp string will vibrate, although I didn't pluck the string. Something in me resonates, for lack of a better word, with Christianity. And so many things, evaluated with my reason, confirm and justify my belief that Christianity pictures the truth. Faith is that final step that we take, if we think it is justified, when reason has taken us as far as it can take us. Christian belief is reason AND faith.

If what you know and what you experience honestly won't let you believe in God, then I don't see why you should believe in God. But what I know and what I experience makes me believe in God. But you can't get into my head and see what I see and experience what I experience.

[JustJim]

darn it. accidentally deleted original. Have to rewrite.

I hate when that happens....

How is that different from delusion or hallucination?

There is no objective evidence one way or another. For you to claim this is delusional is even more delusional by your own standard because you have no objective evidence for this claim. And, let the liars distract nobody by rewriting the discussion. Calling someone delusional IS A CLAIM that most certainly IS subject to the same demands for objective evidence.

Whoa! Back up a little here, please.... I'm NOT claiming it is delusional or that it's not delusional, even though it appears, to me, to meet the criteria for such. I'm only asking how I could tell the difference between a delusion and the real thing, so to speak.

How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

See? I just want to know how to tell the difference.

...
really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

I suggest you see a mental health professional if you are having difficulty with this.

I AM a (retired) mental health professional. My question remains.

We have no reason to believe something is delusional unless it contradicts the objective evidence. So if the objective evidence proves nothing either way then such a contradiction simply doesn't exist.

That's not exactly correct, Mitch. Something doesn't need to contradict objective evidence in order to be delusional; it can be unsupported or uncorroborated by evidence. The fact that someone believes something is real, even though what they believe is not supported or corroborated by anything other than their self-reports of what they think they see or hear or feel, IS reason to suspect their belief may be delusional.

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way.

Why should this post be any different than (sic) your others. Claims about what you are trying to do gives you no more exclusive right to being nasty than being atheist. I am not trying to be nasty either. But I think it is entirely appropriate to respond to people by the standard that they themselves adopt.

I don't understand what you mean here. Surely, you couldn't be so preposterously egotistical that you would be calling me a liar, presuming to know my inner thoughts, feelings, and intentions better than I do? Rian understood my reason for saying I wasn't trying to be nasty, even though I recognized that the words I used could be misconstrued that way. I'm sorry you couldn't. I was being genuine and sincere. I wasn't trying to give myself any right to be nasty by saying I didn't mean to be nasty. That's a ridiculous, inappropriate, unsupported suspicion you carry in your own head.

Mitch, I noticed you re-wrote your response since I posted, I presume in order for you to clarify what you're saying.The thing is, you haven't answered the question. Let me clarify, as I understand it, what Jim's saying.

This is NOT the conversation that occurred:
Mitch & Joey “Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern”
Jim “You are delusional”

Rather, the conversation ran like this:
Mitch & Joey “Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern”
Jim “We don't see that person and His intent written in its overall pattern. What's to stop us from placing you in the same category as other people that see things of which there is no objective evidence?”

Thanks, man! You understood perfectly!

Jim