A closer look at demonstration

[Rian]

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion. They are a method of soothing the fear that there is a more powerful being out there than you, and he can see what's in your innermost heart and will call you to account for your choices. It is a way of trying to get rid of guilt over things you have done that you know are wrong.

I find these type of ape-like mimicking of someone else's post to be in poor taste and an indication of little or no imagination in how to respond. At the very least it demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion.

You're reading something into it that isn't there, Gary. I didn't mean it disrespectfully at all - I was just trying to show how deeply flawed I thought it was by turning it around for him to look at. I didn't use any inflammatory words or attacks - I used what I thought was the same tone and level that he used. However, I know that internet discussions can be difficult because of the lack of non-verbal cues, so perhaps in the future I might add a sentence that I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

However, I also think that many atheists have a double-standard when it comes to these kinds of things - they feel fine saying something that is pretty offensive to Christians, but if a Christian does something at the same level, they cry foul. This really puzzles me - to me, it's obviously a double standard, and I don't get why they don't see it. I know a lot of atheists don't like Mitch's posting style - I don't like when he loses his temper, but also, I think the VAST majority of what he does is at the same level of what some of the atheists are doing, yet they don't see it.

Anyway, please read this in the tone I'm writing it - a person who wants to reach out and understand people that have different opinions while having a vigorous, respectful discussion about what is true and what isn't. That's what's in my heart.

(sorry it took me so long to respond - my health is so bad now that I can hardly get on, then when I get on, I see things that I want to respond to, then I have a down cycle and feel worse and can't respond to the responses! )

[gary_s]

You're reading something into it that isn't there, Gary. I didn't mean it disrespectfully at all - I was just trying to show how deeply flawed I thought it was by turning it around for him to look at. I didn't use any inflammatory words or attacks - I used what I thought was the same tone and level that he used. However, I know that internet discussions can be difficult because of the lack of non-verbal cues, so perhaps in the future I might add a sentence that I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

Fair enough, Rian, and this is pretty much what I had concluded myself. I just think that we should endeavor, whenever possible, to ask people why they believe things first. I think we should even go out of our way to do so to avoid these insult wars. I just think we get better information that way and I think it keeps the overall environment much better.

However, I also think that many atheists have a double-standard when it comes to these kinds of things - they feel fine saying something that is pretty offensive to Christians, but if a Christian does something at the same level, they cry foul. This really puzzles me - to me, it's obviously a double standard, and I don't get why they don't see it. I know a lot of atheists don't like Mitch's posting style - I don't like when he loses his temper, but also, I think the VAST majority of what he does is at the same level of what some of the atheists are doing, yet they don't see it.

Rian, the reason you believe there is a double-standard is that you don't acknowledge that both sides do this on occasion. You would likely defend statements that you consider completely reasonable, but to an atheist they may not be. So, the double standard is that neither side fully understands the other and shouldn't pretend they do. The easiest way to avoid conflict is to just ask for clarification instead of taking offense or throwing more insults. So it goes both ways. If you assume it was intended as an insult, you may be wrong, but if you ask for more explanation you could find out.

Anyway, please read this in the tone I'm writing it - a person who wants to reach out and understand people that have different opinions while having a vigorous, respectful discussion about what is true and what isn't. That's what's in my heart.

Yes, I think you are in the right place. I wish Yuri would come back and explain himself more fully. I've taken a position of agreement with him and Mitch only seems to want to CRUCIFY me for it without a trial or jury, which I consider ASININE!

(sorry it took me so long to respond - my health is so bad now that I can hardly get on, then when I get on, I see things that I want to respond to, then I have a down cycle and feel worse and can't respond to the responses! )

No worries. Take care of yourself first.

[mitchellmckain]

Yes, I think you are in the right place. I wish Yuri would come back and explain himself more fully. I've taken a position of agreement with him and Mitch only seems to want to CRUCIFY me for it without a trial or jury, which I consider ASININE!

I don't really understand why you would even imagine such a thing. What in particular am I saying that seems like nails being driven into your flesh?

[gary_s]

Yes, I think you are in the right place. I wish Yuri would come back and explain himself more fully. I've taken a position of agreement with him and Mitch only seems to want to CRUCIFY me for it without a trial or jury, which I consider ASININE!

I don't really understand why you would even imagine such a thing. What in particular am I saying that seems like nails being driven into your flesh?

By the way, I used "crucify" as a metaphor here. To many adults this would be obvious, but to Mitch it clearly isn't, so I have to step in and explain a simple literary technique for him so he can understand what's going on.

Let's see, perhaps it is the constant accusation of being intolerant, bigoted, prejudice or lying. Or maybe it's the charge that I cannot tolerate disagreement when it was actually you who continues to berate and belittle my opinions and label them outrageous things. I can handle disagreement, but I'm no going to stand idle while you throw insults at me. You don't just state that you disagree and argue why, you feel that you must try to discredit the person with labels and insults. Then you act all high and mighty when the other person gets fed up with your behavior and calls you on it. You act as if you have some higher power's permission to throw out insults, but others do not. You even state outright that if you don't think a comment is worthy of a reasoned response, then you feel free to throw insults at it instead. That's fine, but if you do that, you have to be prepared to receive insults in return. I've seen you do these things hundreds of times on this forum, Mitch. You never change, you just keep doing it and keep doing it and I think it sucks. The only logical conclusion I can come to about this is that you enjoy these sort of mindless insult wars because you keep creating them out of nothing. And yes, YOU are creating them. If you don't like what I post, you insult it. If I don't like what you post, I say that I disagree and here is why...explanation...then you come back and insult it. See the pattern?

[gary_s]

This is one of Mitch's earlier posts in this misbegotten thread. Up to this point I have only established that I mostly agree with Yuri and I had posted my reasoning and experiences that support that reasoning. So, I would like others to judge whether Mitch's response is in any way reasonable.

If you are going to stubbornly insist that Yuri's BS is the truth then I will see that as sufficient reason to believe that what Rian said is the truth in your case. Intolerance doesn't deserve tolerance, it only proves that those who employ it are worthy of mockery and contempt.

So, here Mitch has decided that I am worthy of mockery and contempt. That sounds quite judgmental to me and it clearly indicates that he has no intention of discussing the topic, but rather wants only to go off on an ad hominem and bully me into submission. Clearly it is Mitch who cannot tolerate my opinions so much that he can't even bring himself to discuss them. Also note that this is after I had posted a lengthy explanation of where my opinions came from and what I think they mean about Christians, being very careful to note that I do not intend to offend anyone and that I don't see Yuri's point to indicate irrational behavior on the part of Christians. I just know that what Yuri said is true in many cases, particularly where I live. I see these people every day and we've had very profound discussions about religion. Even when Mitch acknowledges that he has no experience with Christians from the South, he insists that he knows them better than I do. So, he's perfectly within his rights to disagree with Yuri and me, but he has no right to treat me with contempt just because he doesn't like what I say. If he does, then I have just as much right to return his contempt whenever I dislike what he says. If you play this game, Mitch, this is what you get.

[gary_s]

So, to restate what set Mitch off in the first place,Yuri stated this:

The trouble is, your perspective is based on fundamental values of deeper perspective that many do not share.

For example, you take the authority of the Bible as sufficient proof that "lots of awesome miracles" happened. What if the Bible is a book of fairy tales?

When you casually mention these awesome miracles without the slightest hint that it may be that no such miracle ever happened, then you lose from your audience everybody who knows that the universe has laws of nature that have never been demonstrated to have been broken, except in these rather unlikely fairy tales that have innumerable explanations more likely than "miracle".

Do you remember making the choice to believe that God exists?

Rather than trying to create a logical argument for the existence of God, you would be more effective in persuading atheists that whether or not God actually exists really isn't the point. Faith is nothing whatsoever to do with truth. Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority. Take the Biblical view of homosexuality for example. It is not possible to explain why homosexuality is immoral without reference to an authority source such as the bible. Any such explanation can only be justified by saying "according to the bible". So, by claiming belief in God, the faithful can justify their intolerance of something they find to be a disgusting thought. In reality there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of religion. There is such a thing as morality but in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with god or the bible; morality is a purely subjective issue.

If biblical morality is so hopelessly flawed, the only reason remaining to believe in God is fear of death. This is how to trap new members into faith: concentrate on their fear.

I reposted it in whole so as to leave the context intact. For the most part, I agree with yuri's statements. I do not agree with his comments regarding faith and truth and logical conclusions, but the rest is very reasonable. I know that this comes across as insulting to many Christians and I apologize for that, but the reality is that there are whole sects of Christians who base their faith first and foremost on the hell doctrine. That single issue is job number one and the moral authority argument is not far behind it. So these comments by Yuri are not far fetched. No, they do not represent all of Christianity; there's far too much diversity for that to be true. But there are quite a lot who would not argue much with Yuri's post if it was phrased a little differently so as to not sound like a slight.

So, if you put it this way: Christians fear the punishment of eternal hell and see god as the moral authority of the universe and these are two of the most important building blocks for their faith. I can guarantee that thousands of Christians would not argue with this phrase. But this is just a way of rewording it to put it in a more palatable form. The basic point of what Yuri said is still true.

Now, if Mitch or Rian or Aaron or anyone disagrees with this analysis, you are free to say so. I won't condemn or insult any response that doesn't include insults. But I reserve the right to defend my conclusions until such time as anyone demonstrates why I am wrong about this, and I'm completely open to ideas that could change my mind. However, if I continue to argue and provide reasoning for my position, I will not accept insulting remarks about the nature of my conclusions just because someone else doesn't agree. Sometimes people just disagree and neither is capable of changing the other's mind. That is not always a terrible ending. I can live with that. I don't demand that others agree with me. If Mitch doesn't agree with my conclusions, I don't really care. But I will not tolerate his continued attempts at character assassination.

[gary_s]

I think I a missing something here.
When testing gold don't you also have to know with an equal or greater understanding what your testing the gold with or against.

No I don't think so. If someone tries to sell you something you only have to test for whether or not its gold, your test does not depend on whether or not you can identify what it is, just that you know its gold or its not gold and if its not gold then its not necessary to find out what it is. But maybe I'm missing something here?

If Rhino was speaking literally, then yes you did miss something important. Testing metal for gold content isn't a binary thing; it's a test of the purity of the gold in the metal object that determines its worth. Gold can only be as pure as pure gold and no more. There's a finite standard. But metaphorically, I don't know that the comparison works that well.

[gary_s]

How do I know that’s gold? In order to answer that question I have to know something about gold. I could know that its shiny gold color and soft and heavy compared to other metals. If I wanted to get more specific I could measure its density or do an acid test or test for ferromagnetic properties or do a conductivity test. There are many ways that I could demonstrate that some block of matter is gold (Au), or that it is some other material and therefore not gold. But in order to do any of those demonstrations I have to have a good understanding of gold and its properties.

So it is clear then. In order for a demonstration to be useful in any meaningful way the people interested in the demonstration must understand the subject of the demonstration well enough to know whether or not the demonstration is apposite* for the subject at hand.

So on to the subject of God. It seems perfectly reasonable based on the discussion above that in order to have a valid demonstration a person must first understand the subject of the demonstration, that is they must understand God. The only place I know of to understand anything about God is by reading about him in the Bible so that’s where I’ll look.

In the Bible we read that God call everything into being and chose Abraham and rose up the nation of Israel and did lots of awesome miracles. Certainly those can be considered demonstrations, a problem is they happened a long time ago so they are weaker in the sense that they are historical, no one living today was around to see them (although it is interesting to note that it was recorded that even people that lived through the miracles often had no change of heart toward God and still lacked belief toward his promises for them).

The demonstrations are not all historical, however. In the Bible we also read about how we can know if we’re in Christ and that’s through the kind of life that we have after he is in us. Jesus said this as well as his apostles. If we have really been saved by Christ our lives will change. We will begin to desire to read his word, we will begin to hate sins that never bothered us before, we will begin to see our priorities change from self centered to others centered. Our lives will begin to look closer to how Jesus lived.

I find this to be true in my own life as well in other people’s lives that I read or hear about. People who have lived with an addiction all their life and when finally they see that all hope in themselves is lost they cast themselves on God and he changes them, genuinely changes who they are. I’m not saying that once a person is saved their lives are totally changed and they act exactly like Jesus, for that is simply not how it works. But I am saying that if Christ truly lives in a person they will begin to show his characteristics.

Looking at this in big picture mode I find that this makes a lot of sense to me. God provided awesome external demonstrations of his power and it achieved little in terms of changing people’s hearts toward him. So God fixed that inability of ours to change our dark hearts by providing the most awesome miracle ever, Jesus. Now Christ is able to enter the heart of the individual and save them from themselves and give them a new heart with new desires, His desires. For it seems to me the purpose of all this was not to make it plain that God existed and was really in charge by performing all kinds of awesome miracles, but it was to genuinely and fully rescue people from their sin which had held them as captives with no hope for escape. That is really what is at stake here.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps we should understand what God is really about (that is the salvation of mankind by removing their sin and changing their hearts) before we seek a demonstration. I contend that we could very well be trying to prove something is gold by checking to see if it sticks to the kitchen ceiling, it just doesn't make sense. So what do you all think of this?

*Hyperlink for those of you like me who had never seen this word before.

Aaron, this is a well thought out idea and sounds very logical. However, there are other explanations that fit just as well. I agree that the outward demonstration of power might not convince everyone because some will be skeptical, some may not witness it, some will interpret it differently and so on. But the other alternative is actually far more convincing. In fact, I think the meme of religion is actually extremely effective at convincing humans to behave in certain ways because it doesn't just try to force them into actions but rather gets into their thought process and works through human nature and psychology. Meme can be far more powerful than authoritarian edicts because of this. There are other memes that have success as well. Just look at the meme of science or the meme of democracy. Neither of these memes had to exist. They were both products of human ideas and once established they found purchase in the human psyche and perpetuate themselves. Religion is the most successful meme among these three and for that I am impressed by its power but I don't think it works any differently than the others. Just like religion there are people who resist the memes of science and democracy. All of these memes allow one to embrace its power or reject it outright. There are probably many other memes that I haven't though of.

[mitchellmckain]

Apparently my defense of tolerance infuriates gary but I most certainly will not apologize for that. And yes I can only conclude that such a reaction confirms that this does apply to gary himself and that he is indulging himself in intolerant behavior whether he feels justified in doing so by his experiences or not. But I certainly am not out on some campaign to crucify gary any more than I am out to get all the Christian that I frankly acknowledge are also indulging in intolerant behavior. In any case, it certainly appears to me that gary is the one who is doing all the angry ranting, childish tantrums and crucifying here in this thread.

Can you please explain why you reject my personal experience with Christians who believe this way?

Every biggot that has ever existed on this planet has there own list of personal experiences to back up their campaign of hatred. They ignorantly generalize to identify a whole group of people with those people. This is exactly what Yuri did and what gary has endorsed. But if we would stand against intolerance and bigotry then we must reject this kind of argument and name if for what it is.

Why don't Christians argue that learning more about the world leads one to Christianity?

They most certainly do, all the time to those who listen rather than those who simply make up excuses for hatred.

Clearly there are all kinds of issues where I have no problems with disagreements whatsoever and you have seen this repeatedly in other threads. But when I see people passing judgement on people different from them and dictating the the thinking and motivations of other people to fit their inane strawman arguments then I most certainly will object because those are NOT neutral opinions -- they are offensive by their very nature.

Let me spell that out. NO, tolerant people do not dictate the thinking and motivations of other people. Tolerant people do not make their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for passing judgments on other people. Tolerant people avoid generalizing from experiences with specific people to whole groups. Yes Christians most certainly do this a lot. They are indulging in intolerant behavior when they do that. But what they do does not justify you doing the same thing. When you do it then you most certainly are indulging in intolerant behavior as well.

[gary_s]

Apparently my defense of tolerance infuriates gary but I most certainly will not apologize for that. And yes I can only conclude that such a reaction confirms that this does apply to gary himself and that he is indulging himself in intolerant behavior whether he feels justified in doing so by his experiences or not. But I certainly am not out on some campaign to crucify gary any more than I am out to get all the Christian that I frankly acknowledge are also indulging in intolerant behavior. In any case, it certainly appears to me that gary is the one who is doing all the angry ranting, childish tantrums and crucifying here in this thread.

Apparently my defense of tolerance infuriates Mitch but I most certainly will not apologize for that. And yes I can only conclude that such a reaction confirms that this does apply to Mitch himself and that he is indulging himself in intolerant behavior whether he feels justified in doing so by his experiences or not. But I certainly am not out on some campaign to crucify Mitch any more than I am out to get all the Christian that I frankly acknowledge are also indulging in intolerant behavior. In any case, it certainly appears to me that Mitch is the one who is doing all the angry ranting, childish tantrums and crucifying here in this thread.

Every biggot that has ever existed on this planet has there own list of personal experiences to back up their campaign of hatred. They ignorantly generalize to identify a whole group of people with those people. This is exactly what Mitch did and what Mitch has endorsed. But if we would stand against intolerance and bigotry then we must reject this kind of argument and name if for what it is.

Let me spell that out. NO, tolerant people do not dictate the thinking and motivations of other people. Tolerant people do not make their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for passing judgments on other people. Tolerant people avoid generalizing from experiences with specific people to whole groups. Yes Christians most certainly do this a lot. They are indulging in intolerant behavior when they do that. But what they do does not justify you doing the same thing. When you do it then you most certainly are indulging in intolerant behavior as well.

Then you are just as guilty, Mitch. And I never generalized. I stated specifics; you just ignored all my comments and labeled me as intolerant. Well, I think you are the most intolerant one here because you cannot stand it that other people don't share your opinions.

[gary_s]

I continue to reject Mitch's rather ignorant charges of intolerance because they are meaningless. My opinions were stated clearly and honestly and were supported by relevant experiences. I never claimed my experiences or conclusions were universal, but rather that they do pertain to certain types of Christians which Mitch is apparently unaware of. At any rate, it is form them that I get the conclusions and not my own ideas, so if it is intolerant, then this intolerance comes directly from the Christians of whom I speak.

[gary_s]

Let me spell that out. NO, tolerant people do not dictate the thinking and motivations of other people. Tolerant people do not make their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for passing judgments on other people. Tolerant people avoid generalizing from experiences with specific people to whole groups. Yes Christians most certainly do this a lot. They are indulging in intolerant behavior when they do that. But what they do does not justify you doing the same thing. When you do it then you most certainly are indulging in intolerant behavior as well.

Well, all of this has essentially nothing to do with tolerance anyway. This war against intolerance is Mitch's fantasy. As I have stated before, everything on this forum is ideas and comments and nothing more. There is no one here who is mistreating others because they dislike or disapprove of their beliefs. This is nothing but an exchange of ideas. What I find so disturbing about Mitch is that when someone does share an idea that he disagrees with, he throws insults at it instead of discussing it. OK, so he finds it objectionable. Why continue on and on ad nausea then? You've stated your case so why do you continue to do so? What exactly are you gaining here?

But it is relevant to discuss what you understand about others and their motivations and even their innermost thoughts. That's all fair game for a discussion forum.

[mitchellmckain]

Apparently my defense of tolerance infuriates Mitch but I most certainly will not apologize for that.

But I am not even angry. No I have not assumed that gary is angry or accused him of being angry. I asked him if he was angry and he said yes.

But if gary wants to confirm that the defence of tolerance is a good thing then I will endorse that whether he chooses to aim it at me or not, and I repeat assertion that tolerance does not logically include a tolerance of intolerance. So if this is what he is seeking to prove with his behavior, it will not work.

Every biggot that has ever existed on this planet has there own list of personal experiences to back up their campaign of hatred. They ignorantly generalize to identify a whole group of people with those people.

That is correct.

This is exactly what Mitch did and what Mitch has endorsed. But if we would stand against intolerance and bigotry then we must reject this kind of argument and name if for what it is.

I most certainly do endorse the opposition to intolerant behavior no matter what excuses people use for it, and I will certainly oppose generalizing personal experiences with a whole group of people. Therefore no matter how nasty gary is to me, I will NEVER turn that into universal claims about how atheists think or what motivates people to be atheists. So bring on gary and I will continue to refuse indulging in that kind of irrationality. Would you like torture intruments to force me to agree with you that way?

Then you are just as guilty, Mitch.

No gary, I am not. I only endorsed Rian's comments as a response to Yuri's. If she had said what she did otherwise then I would have objected. Furthermore, even though I endorsed what she said for the purpose she intended I also immediately explained that it was no more true of atheists in general than what Yuri said was true of theists in general.

And I never generalized.

When you endorse Yuri's comments and deny Rian's right to object, you most certainly do affirm Yuri's generalization from personal experiences to universal statements about the motivation of everyone who believes in God. Furthermore you certainly did made it clear that you thought your personal experiences in the deep south justified such generalizations.

You just ignored all my comments and labeled me as intolerant.

No I did not and do not label you as intolerant. I identify a certain way of thinking and behavior as intolerant. People are not absolutely classified as either tolerant or intolerant. People who are generally intolerant can display tolerant thinking and behavior, and people who are generally tolerant can display intolerant thinking and behavior. AND I don't claim to be immune. I think there certainly are areas where I probably do tend to be a little intolerant. I tend to be a little intolerant of things that contradict scientific orthodoxy, for example. I tend to be a little intolerant of certain types of religious thinking that I do not understand and don't see much value in, such as Calvinism and arguments from authority.

1. Imposing ones opinions on objectively undecidable issues on other people to judge them with regards to rationality, morality or sanity is intolerant.
2. Dictating the thinking and motives of other people who think differently than you do is typical of intolerant behavior.
3. Generalizing from personal experiences with a few people to make universal assertions about a whole group of people is the very essence of prejudice.
4. Getting angry at the defense of tolerance and the being infuriated at the identification of certain things as intolerant is also typical of intolerant behavior and a very strong indicator of intolerant attitudes.

Tolerance is an ideal that has to be fought for, and it is abundantly clear that the whole world has a long way to go on that score.

[gary_s]

But I am not even angry. No I have not assumed that gary is angry or accused him of being angry. I asked him if he was angry and he said yes.

That's one of the few things you haven't accused me of. But yes, I am angry with your constant insults and accusations when you know essentially nothing about what you are talking about. You are assuming as much about me as you accuse me of assuming about Christians in general.

But if gary wants to confirm that the defence of tolerance is a good thing then I will endorse that whether he chooses to aim it at me or not, and I repeat assertion that tolerance does not logically include a tolerance of intolerance. So if this is what he is seeking to prove with his behavior, it will not work.

I am simply not interested in your fantasy war of intolerance, Mitch. That is your silliness. I prefer to take one comment or one post at a time and discuss the issues as they come. If I agree, I will say so. If I disagree, I will say it and usually explain why. What I don't do is start calling people liars and bigots just because I don't like their opinions. I typically wait until they start calling me a liar and a bigot and then the kid gloves are off.

Every biggot that has ever existed on this planet has there own list of personal experiences to back up their campaign of hatred. They ignorantly generalize to identify a whole group of people with those people.

That is correct.

I didn't do any of that. I didn't generalize, I stated specifically that my experience applies to those that I know and therefore clearly Yuri's statements have some truth to them. You ignored those comments. So, instead of discussing what I know to be true, you just label me as intolerant and a bigot. Well, that works both ways, bub. You are just as intolerant.

I most certainly do endorse the opposition to intolerant behavior no matter what excuses people use for it, and I will certainly oppose generalizing personal experiences with a whole group of people. Therefore no matter how nasty gary is to me, I will NEVER turn that into universal claims about how atheists think or what motivates people to be atheists. So bring on gary and I will continue to refuse indulging in that kind of irrationality. Would you like torture intruments to force me to agree with you that way?

Oh, yes, please continue to pretend that you are the victim here, Mitch. Please remind us who called who a liar. Let me remind you; it was you who called me a liar and Yuri as well, not to mention bigot and intolerant. You are the bully here Mitch. And no matter how nasty Mitch is to me here, I will NEVER turn that into universal claims about how Christians think or what motivates people to be Christians.

No gary, I am not. I only endorsed Rian's comments as a response to Yuri's. If she had said what she did otherwise then I would have objected. Furthermore, even though I endorsed what she said for the purpose she intended I also immediately explained that it was no more true of atheists in general than what Yuri said was true of theists in general.

Those comments have nothing to do with your intolerant behavior, Mitch. I will continue to state that much of what Yuri said is true and that is also my prerogative. I reject your claims that it is intolerant, but rather a careful observation on my part and based mostly on conversations with Christians that I know personally.

When you endorse Yuri's comments and deny Rian's right to object, you most certainly do affirm Yuri's generalization from personal experiences to universal statements about the motivation of everyone who believes in God. Furthermore you certainly did made it clear that you thought your personal experiences in the deep south justified such generalizations.

I did not "deny Rian's rights". I objected to her use of mockery; that's it. I did not delete her post or call her a liar. Am I not allowed to object to something that someone else posted? Is that your rule, Mitch? Sorry, I didn't see the memo. Everyone note that no one is to object to something that Mitch thinks is appropriate.

And again, I did not generalize; I stated specifics and even made the point of commenting that I know this doesn't apply to all Christians, as stupid as it seems because any intelligent person would know it couldn't possibly apply to such a large group. I even went into a lengthy explanation of how Christian culture differs greatly by region and country and that could play a part in what you experience versus mine. You are manufacturing words and shoving them into my mouth and I reject them as lies. I did not say the things you are accusing me of. I did not generalize. YOU chose to ignore my detailed explanations.

No I did not and do not label you as intolerant. I identify a certain way of thinking and behavior as intolerant. People are not absolutely classified as either tolerant or intolerant. People who are generally intolerant can display tolerant thinking and behavior, and people who are generally tolerant can display intolerant thinking and behavior. AND I don't claim to be immune. I think there certainly are areas where I probably do tend to be a little intolerant. I tend to be a little intolerant of things that contradict scientific orthodoxy, for example. I tend to be a little intolerant of certain types of religious thinking that I do not understand and don't see much value in, such as Calvinism and arguments from authority.

So you labeled my opinions as intolerant, then? Big difference. You did call me a liar and a bigot. And you are clearly not immune, as your current behavior demonstrates.

1. Imposing ones opinions on objectively undecidable issues on other people to judge them with regards to rationality, morality or sanity is intolerant.

Yes, you are very good at imposing your opinions on others, as you have been doing on this thread for days now. As in, continuing to insist that my opinions are intolerance with not discussion of them. You even stated that if I insisted on supporting Yuri's "BS" then you would then label mine as intolerant and bigoted.

2. Dictating the thinking and motives of other people who think differently than you do is typical of intolerant behavior.

I see, so labeling me as intolerant, bigoted, a liar, those are examples of dictating the thinking and motives of other people. YOu did a good job there.

3. Generalizing from personal experiences with a few people to make universal assertions about a whole group of people is the very essence of prejudice.

You certainly have done this by arguing that atheists reject god just because they want to sin without guilt. YOU said those very things. And if you would get your facts straight and stop putting words in my mouth you might be able to make a point. So far you are only fumbling over your own misconception of what I have said.

4. Getting angry at the defense of tolerance and the being infuriated at the identification of certain things as intolerant is also typical of intolerant behavior and a very strong indicator of intolerant attitudes.

I get angry when someone insults me and calls me a liar. Your favorite tactic, Mitch.

Tolerance is an ideal that has to be fought for, and it is abundantly clear that the whole world has a long way to go on that score.

I really don't think you any ideas what tolerance is, Mitch. You have your version, but so far as I see it, it looks nothing like what I know it to be. Your version is to lambaste any idea you disagree with. Insult, mock, deride, harass, lie...these are all the kinds of tactics you use, all in the hopes of silencing others whom you disagree with. I will not bow to you, Mitch.

[mitchellmckain]

Well I am getting bored so I will ignore gary's rants until he has calmed down.