Perhaps it is my age, perhaps not. During the 60’s or 70’s someone who declared him- or her- self a liberal used to listen to to all ideas, consider them and respect other people’s beliefs even if they did not agree. Beliefs are personal and often because they may involve intangibles, may be difficult to explain.
This new group of would-be atheists instead sarcastically mock the beliefs of others, a juvenile characteristic that grownups should have put away upon maturity.
Respecting the beliefs of others was a hallmark of civilized society. These neo-atheists declare themselves to be smarter than anyone else, to be free-thinkers, to be superior to other individuals. They elevate themselves to a man-god-like status, a new class of intelligentsia they would have us all believe.
They call themselves people of reason and science that they think the rest of us strive to be. Personally I have found them somewhat blinder to themselves, less reasonable, more opinionated and thinking freely only within their own set of beliefs.
Perhaps this has occurred because of men like Richard Dawkins, himself a mocker, a belittler of all those who are believers, at least believers in Christianity, the world’s largest religion. Perhaps many see him as their de facto leader and as is often the case, knowingly or not, emulate him. Or perhaps it is just the divisive spirit of the age.
Of course, he won’t admit it is a religion. But it has all the earmarks of a religion which is simply a set of beliefs that someone holds to.
Of course as do most, he believes that his newly-discovered ancient faith is based totally on logic, reason, science, and free-thinking which of course only “atheists” can do. The evidence he presents to me, is supposed to prove to me that atheism is the only logical thought process or belief.
However his so-called “evidence” or free-thinking, he has admitted to me, comes from listening to many atheists and
Christians for hours on end as he drives between service calls. He believes the atheists are smarter, and the Christians arguments somewhat wanting. Although he listens to Christian debaters, he seems to think that they are all simpletons. Of course he may simply be ignorant of the psychological that it is easy for any of us to “get what we expect”. Why would he spend hours listening to both of these points of view if he did not wish to change his belief from that of “christian” as he claims to one of “atheism”? A Christian who knows the evidence for Christian belief would probably not bother to listen to another atheistic mono- or dialogue in which the Christian religion is treated as a childish belief comparable to Santa Claus. [On the other hand, I hear atheists speaking in language that may impress some but is incomprehensible to the average person.]
He sends me links to videos without giving a reason or a even a point that he is trying to make. These links normally lead to someone else’s opinion that he found on the web and holds that now he has sent me “ironclad” [maybe rusty iron?] evidence that he is right.
But they are simply the OPINIONS of others. Oh yes, he once sent me a total of, uh I believe ONE, poll, created by two atheists who believe like he does. Of course he immediately assumes that I, being in the simpleton category, cannot see or know that many polls are biased very easily by the way questions are asked. And his definitely was. It was some polling group I had never heard of before or since.
So his free-thinking seems to boil down to finding the stories of people in print or video that agree with him.That appears to be his research method. Perhaps he could become a reporter for the Toronto Star.
I being, a doubting Thomas by nature, question most opinions unless I see REAL evidence that CANNOT be disputed. If it can be disputed, then perhaps it is just one opinion against another.
The only way it seems I can get him to see what he is doing is to present him with some questions and insist on him answering them before I will even look at another of his videos or diatribes, which of course, are “ironclad”, 🙂
listened to both sides of the issue and he thought that the atheists were more convincing. [again, simply a matter of perspective and opinion].
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to read what the Bible says? After all that is the original book on which Judaism and Christianity are based. Why not go to the original? Lew Wallace did and was transformed by what he read!
He has no idea what or why I believe what I do, because he hasn’t asked me, but he makes all kinds of spurious, sarcastic stereotypical assumptions about me and my beliefs even though he doesn’t know them. And about 99 44/100% of the time he is dead wrong. It is almost like he discovered an atheistic website which has spurious questions to throw at Christians and then he copies them over to his email and sends them to me 🙂
In other words he loves to create a straw man and then attempt to destroy it. Straw men may need to be destroyed, preferably previous to use.
So since he claims he is “away ahead of me” I sent him some questions on October 22. It is now December 10, he has not answered them, so I sent
So far he is way BEHIND me, by about 44 days. It is now December 10, 2012. [March 20, 2013 now]
Here are the questions.
BC,do you think that perhaps if you had an IQ test that you would be found smarter than Lee Strobels, Peter Hitchens and Anthony Flew, as well as C.S. Lewis and J R Tolkien [oh and now we have to add Lew Wallace] just to
mention a few that pop to mind?
C.S. Lewis, professor, writer, and atheist from the age of 15 …
J R Tolkien, writer of The Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, poet and professor ….
Peter Hitchens, journalist, author and former atheist …
“Now if you do believe your IQ and research method and intelligence is beyond that of the above men after reading carefully their conversions to Christianity [with the exception of Tolkien], may I suggest that you have sold yourself short and should have followed in their footsteps as far as academic accomplishments or more accurately surpassed their accomplishments?”
We are waiting for his response. I doubt he will respond because even tho he claims superior wisdom, he presents no evidence, just his assertion, that I suppose we are all supposed to take on faith.
I rest my case! If BC wants to believe in his “gods” like Dawkins, Hitchens and the like, living in a free country, he may. So much for his claim to advanced wisdom. I hold no grudges against BC, nor any atheist. I make my best efforts never to mock a person or his beliefs. I find that characteristic wanting in any of the atheists I have attempted to talk with online.
I sent BC two books which present some of the cases for belief in a God. To his credit he accepted them and tells me that he read them. He found one line in one of them that he claimed was not true. That is all I heard.
I offered to send him Peter Hitchen’s book “Rage Against God” but he has not said that he would read it. Until he indicates he will read it with an open true-free-thinking mind, it would be a waste to send it. [However BC, the offer is still open if you become open.]
BC sent an email which said that he will not answer because I will just “twist” them around into something he did not mean.
In the absence of his answers here is my take.
The real reason is that he wants to consider himself superior to me, to all believers, and he knows how it will sound if he says he is smarter than all 5 of the people above.
It is not the twisting he is worried about, it is the truth. He cannot face the fact that he believes himself so superior to all of us. That is the only choice I can see. If one really believes in evidence and logic, he would answer the questions and admit he feels superior to all of them. Then let reasoning can take place.
In addiction to anything, the first step is that the person must admit his addiction. Unfortunately by not answering, BC has admitted his addiction. An addiction to feelings of superiority.
However he is a free person, living in a democracy and he is entitled to his belief system as we all are, even if others do not have faith in them.
I would feel no compulsion to even discuss this issue if he did not have such a blatant offensive attitude. Unfortunately, these neo-atheists all have this same characteristic behavior. They attempt to rewrite history in their eyes by “twisting” the truth of history.
Reporting the Truth as I see it.
-Press For Truth
January 24 Addendum [Now March 20, 2013]
Still no answers. However he does say this:
“As for your question, I have never suggested my IQ is higher than anyone’s. That is just some silly rhetoric you made up and is further evidence of your dishonesty. What I have been saying is I have a fairly broad knowledge of science and logic that you seem to be lacking. I’m continually catching you in errors of logic that you’re not honest enough to admit to.” – BC
[Notice no evidence presented just his own biased opinion?]
The reason I have disabled BC’s automatic approval is that he started to use “flaming” accusatory statements, AND statements much worse than the statements above which I could make about him as well.
IN other words instead of answering questions, he makes accusations and statements. I have had to remove his comments or the greater part of them, not to take things out of context but to avoid displaying excessive amounts of braggadocio which are empty of anything but opinions. I made it clear to him before that logical supported arguments are accepted but not inflammatory or accusatory remarks nor any remarks without evidence.
When I respond to BC, 9 / 10 times I give background evidence not just opinions as displayed above.
What does “way ahead” mean? Does it mean he thinks he is smarter? In educational circles, “way ahead” refers to smarter students.
Here are a few of the examples of him being “way ahead”.
- I had to explain to him that atheists deny that there is a God. He responded to an article of mine. They don’t allow for those that have evidence of a God to be right. His response, from memory was something like “My friends and I who are atheists do not deny there is a God. We just don’t have any evidence of one. In fact I don’t know any atheists who deny the existence of God.” I had to explain to him with evidence from the dictionary or Wikipedia that yes the definition of an atheist is … “a·the·ist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” – from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
- So then he admitted he was an agnostic but continues to call himself an atheist.
- I had to explain to BC that Russia, China and several other countries are not just dictatorships but stated atheistic countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion
- BC believes that scientists find facts by consensus. [He may be thinking of how they arrive at hypotheses to be tested.] The wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact explains how facts are arrived at. I am not making these up. That is why I give evidence.
- BC believes that global warming/climate change caused by man is a given fact [because of consensus]. I have pointed out numerous times to him articles by well-known scientists and researchers that show it is only a theory, one based on the hockey graph which has since proven to be defective. I have explained to him that just because a majority of scientists may believe in something does not make it a fact. Piltdown man, “inactive” elements and many other science “facts” have since been proven as NOT factual. BC believes that the “theory of evolution” in total is also a proven fact. We have all seen evidence of evolution within species but to my knowledge no one has found links between species. In fact the there are many groups that question the “religion” that Darwinism has become. The main dispute is that for all of the amazing organisms to have evolved by a series of accidents is not very plausible. This article in Scientific American displays the doubts from someone who is simply stating that scientists do not yet have any idea how life began.
- 1.This website which is PRO – man-made climate change at least shows that there is disagreement about global warming.
- 2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/ also shows that man-made global warming for the last decade has been non-existent
- 3. This site while pro-warming admits that in the last century the earth’s temperature has only increased ONE degree! So that means every year in the last century the temperature has risen by ONLY 0.01th [one hundredth of a degree] degree F. 1/ 100th of a degree or 0.01 of a degree. Can you just feel it? [This is only the beginning of pages I have researched that disagree with there being alarm over man-made global warming.]
So for the present I guess I am dishonest because I have a questioning mind and do not simply accept whatever I hear without looking at the other side of the discussion. And if that is what “dishonesty” is to BC, then I am happy to be called “dishonest”.
However the dictionary has another definition of dishonesty. Dishonesty is defined as “the intention to lie or deceive”. Honestly I have no interest in deception, have never [except as a child] engaged in it. My life is one of searching for truth. But BC can believe what he wants. After all, we do live in a democracy where there is freedom of belief unlike declared atheist countries where disagreement with the government vocally might land you in prison.
However whenever I disagree WITH him and present evidence, BC calls it “dishonesty”. It seems that to him, “dishonesty” is disagreeing with him. Hmmmm… something new I guess. 🙂 I shouldn’t worry too much about his views tho. He was one that joined the Facebook group which wanted to censor Sun Media News from becoming a network in Canada. Democracies believe in free speech. I guess BC does not. Hmmmm that reminds me of some leaders of various “authoritarian dictatorships”.