I saw it at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guest...on101.html , but the author is listed as "anonymous". I found it too funny - not to mention thought-provoking - not to reproduce here.

Religion 101: Final Exam
by Anonymous

1. Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?

1. A Caribbean sunset
2. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
3. The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
4. The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid

2. A deeply devout Catholic couple has just returned from their fiftieth anniversary celebration, when suddenly the husband falls to the ground, clutching his chest. What is the most productive action for the wife to take?

1. Call 911
2. Put him in the car and race to the hospital herself
3. Administer CPR
4. Fall on her knees and pray to the Lord to spare his life

3. You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

1. All-powerful
2. All-knowing
3. All-loving
4. Mysterious

4. One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?

1. Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
2. Call the police on your cell phone
3. Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
4. Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfere

5. You are the incarnated Son of the all-powerful and all-loving Creator of the universe. What would be a good way to demonstrate your compassion and power?

1. Cure cancer forever
2. Cause all the earth's deserts to bloom with food crops
3. Unite the world with a common language and an end to poverty
4. Conjure up a jug of wine and follow it up by walking on water

6. Since we can never "know" whether or not a God exists - it is fundamentally a matter of "faith" - it's best to be a believer since you have nothing to lose, but everything to lose if your disbelief is incorrect. Keeping in mind that the fate of your soul depends on the right choice, in which God should you place your belief? For extra credit, include a brief essay justifying your choice, along with the reasons why you reject the other three.

1. Zeus
2. Quetzalcoatl
3. Vishnu
4. The Holy Trinity

(*Note: Choice D assumes you were born around 400 A.D. or later, after the invention of the Trinity)

7. You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of your planets. Their ruler is being quite obstinate. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to:

1. Cause the ruler to drop dead of a heart attack
2. Cause the ruler to fall off a cliff
3. Visit the ruler in a dream and persuade him to let your people go
4. Slaughter a great number of innocent babies who had nothing to do with the ruler's policies

8. You are a Starfleet Federation explorer in the process of cataloging two newly discovered planets. The majority of the inhabitants of each planet believe in a deity, but they are two different deities. Deity "X" is said to be not only all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but the designer of a marvelously complex and ordered world. Deity "Y" is said to be indifferent, absent, unconcerned with the affairs of his planet, and some even say evil. Which god rules over which planet?

Planet A: Has apparently achieved a state of advanced benign equilibrium in which there are no viruses or diseases, and only a very small number of natural disasters, which, when they do strike, always eliminate only the sinful and evil. The inhabitants, both plant and animal, have learned to maintain their existence through photosynthesis, and thus do not have to kill and eat each other in order to survive. There are no "birth defects;" every inhabitant comes into existence perfectly formed and equipped for a long and productive life.
Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

Planet B: Adorned with many examples of beauty and order, it is also constantly beset by hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, lightning bolts, viruses, disfiguring diseases, parasites, leeches, flies, crop-destroying pests and many other phenomena which afflict both the innocent and the evil. Every life form on the planet can only sustain its existence through the destruction and consumption of other life forms. Some of the inhabitants are born with a crippling condition called a "birth defect", which condemns them to living extremely limited, short, or painful lives.
Deity X_____
Deity Y_____

9. What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored by a visit to the shrine at Lourdes, France?

1. Too many to count
2. Over 1,000
3. Several dozen
4. Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough

10. As we all know, there is only one true religion. What is the one true religion in each of the following circumstances?

1. You are born in Karnak in 3000 B.C.
2. You are born in Bombay in 300 B.C.
3. You are born in Baghdad in 900 A.D.
4. You are born in Mexico City in 1956 A.D.

11. Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?

1. The wind guided it
2. Your muscles guided it
3. There is no need for an explanation
4. You consciously designed your shot to land on that particular blade

12. Which of the following is most likely to be true, and why?

1. Romulus was the son of God, born to a mortal human virgin
2. Dionysus turned water into wine
3. Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from the dead
4. Jesus Christ was the son of God, born to a mortal virgin, turned water into wine, and raised a man from the dead

13. Conceding that torture is permissible under certain conditions, which of the following would be the best justification?

1. Your prisoner is the only one who knows the date and time of an assassination attempt on the Pope
2. Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a nuclear device has been planted in Washington, D.C.
3. Your prisoner is the only one who knows where a vial of nerve gas has been placed in the London water supply system
4. Your prisoner has announced that the earth revolves around the sun

14. We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:

1. A young man (Mark 16:5)
2. No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
3. You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
4. Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

15. According to inerrant Scripture, the Savior prayed alone in the garden while the three disciples who accompanied him had fallen asleep. How did the gospel writer know the words of that prayer?

1. Jesus left them written down under a rock
2. They were recorded on a primitive taping device
3. The gospel writer was psychic
4. The three disciples were later hypnotized and asked to recall the prayer

16. According to at least one sainted church father, one of the pleasures of the saved will be to behold the agony of the damned. What would be the best time of day in heaven for a mother to behold the agony of her only son?

1. Early in the morning before it gets too crowded
2. Mid-day when she can compare notes and share the celebration with other mothers
3. Late at night when she can enjoy the flames in starker contrast

17. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we always look to the Bible as a guide. In this example, your teenage son has returned home from the prom intoxicated. The Bible's instruction is:

1. Sit him down for a heart to heart talk
2. Enroll him in AA
3. Take away his driving privilege for one month
4. Smash his head in with rocks

18. In this example, your son-in-law, returned from his honeymoon, has just told you he suspects your daughter was not a virgin on their wedding night. Wishing to abide by God's holy rules as laid out in the Bible, you should:

1. Ask him if he was a virgin before you do anything
2. Advise him to forgive her
3. Talk to your daughter
4. Go find those rocks

19. You are eating lunch at a crowded fast food restaurant, occupied mostly by children, when suddenly a gunman bursts in, screams "Do not question or test me," and sprays the room with bullets. Ten people are killed instantly, many more grievously wounded, but somehow you escape unharmed. His ammunition expended, the gunman collapses to the floor. What should you do?

1. Call the police and wait for them to arrive
2. Call the police and leave
3. Risk death by asking the gunman why he did it, even though he told you not to
4. Fall on your knees and give thanks and praise to the gunman for sparing your life

20. Why did God show his backside to Moses, as described in Holy Scripture, Ex.33:23?

1. He invented everything, and this was simply the first mooning
2. He was really ticked off when Moses dropped the tablets
3. He was piqued, having just discovered His almighty powers were useless against chariots of iron (Judges I:19)
4. Moses was too serious and needed to lighten up a little

21. Jesus was God, and God knows all things, including all the medical knowledge that will ever be known. Why did Jesus blame demons for the case of epilepsy he cured?

1. He was suffering from a temporary case of "brain freeze"
2. The Aramaic word for "demon" is the same as the word for "cranial malfunction"
3. Neurology was not his specialty
4. In first-century Palestine, demons really did cause epilepsy. This affliction only began to be caused by electrochemical brain activity after about 1850 A.D.

22. This morning's paper carries a story about a suburban father who became so enraged with his disobedient children that he carried them both to the backyard pool where he drowned them, along with their puppy, their kitten, and their hamster. How should this father be treated?

1. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
2. He should be banished from the town
3. He should be lynched to save the taxpayers' money
4. The townspeople should gather together to sing hymns of praise to him

23. This morning I started my day by insulting my mother in public, then punched out my father, my brother, and my sister. Then I gathered up all my clothes, sold them to a second-hand store, and with the proceeds bought a used Uzi and 50 rounds of ammunition. Next, I went down to the animal shelter and injected all the dogs with a drug that caused them to go insane and dive into the nearby canal where they all drowned. By this time I was hungry, so I went over to my neighbor's apple orchard and burned it down, because I wanted an orange and there weren't any. On the way home, I stopped at the local steel mill to discuss my philosophy of life with some of the guys. They laughed at me and said to stow it, so I tossed them all into the blast furnace. That night I discovered my son looking at a copy of Playboy. Concerned for his future welfare, I cut off his right hand. What historical character did my activities today most resemble?

1. Genghis Khan
2. Charles Manson
3. Adolph Hitler
4. Jesus Christ

24. Down through the ages, who has been most responsible for the medical discoveries that have relieved untold amounts of suffering and pain, and extended the length of that most sacred of creations, human life?

1. Medical doctors
2. Research biologists
3. Chemists
4. The Catholic Church

25. A great sadness has come into your life which you feel you cannot bear. A friend informs you of a free counseling service which has never failed to aid and comfort many others. You call the counselor; the phone rings and rings with no answer; you finally hang up. What is the most likely explanation?

1. The counselor is sitting by the phone but not answering in order to test your faith in him
2. The counselor always stands ready to hear your pleas for help, but sometimes the answer is "no"
3. The counselor will not answer because he wants you to profit by the spiritual strength that only comes through suffering
4. The counselor is not home

ESSAY QUESTION

While it is true that there have been and still are many different gods and many different religions, they are really just the various names by which various cultures approach the same God. Explain how and why each of the following is the same God:

* Quetzalcoatl, who wants you to skin a young virgin alive, then put on the skin and dance;
* Shiva, who wants you to pray over his penis;
* Allah, who wants you to fly airliners into buildings;
* Catholic God; who speaks directly through the Pope;
* Baptist God, who most definitely does not;
* Jesus, who wants you to castrate yourself to ensure arrival in heaven
* Jehovah, who any day now, is going to kill everyone on the earth except for his Witnesses

I actually started to answer each question at first. But it's kind of pointless.
Basically this is just a wack at Xtianity, which is fine, but it didn't provoke any thought. It did however reveal to me a bunch of stereotypes people have against religion. Implying especially that no religious person thinks for themselves.

Reading between the lines I can only hear the words "You are all stupid."

Kren: yes, it is humor, but it is thought-provoking... to Christians. Of course, most of them have provoking-proof thoughts.

If you think it's just a jab at Christianity, you're wrong. Instead, it's taking Christianity to the limit.

For instance, consider 17. and 18.. It's obvious that the last choice is the one the Bible tells you to do. Christians tell you the Bible is the word of God, and should be obeyed literally. So, what gives?

I know you don't agree with those Christians, and don't believe that the Bible is perfect. But a lot of Christians do. Too many, in fact. Those questions simply ask them to think about what they believe, and the consequences of that belief.

Other questions, for instance, show that the qualities Christians believe their god has, would, if we were talking about a human being, make him a monster. And yet, God is excused, because... well, he's God.

And other questions show that the Christian faith contradicts itself all the time (see question 14), isn't really original (see question 12), and so on.

I'm sorry if you stopped reading; this "test" is really a brilliant piece of work (I can say so because I didn't write it ), and I'd almost beg you to read it in full. Really. Read it, with no anger, no "these guys are against what I believe". Read it, and, when it leads your mind somewhere, don't put a stop to it. After all, if religion is "right", it will still be right after you've thought about it, won't it?

It wasn't that they are against what I believe, most Christians would be against what I believe. It was the underlying implication that being Christian = being stupid. I'll give it a good read.

Pedro, thanks for posting the exam and for your kind comments. I am the author of the exam--you have EXACTLY gotten the point. While intending to provoke thought, it is very difficult not to have it interpreted as an "attack" (and Kren, read again please - the piece includes Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindusm, and the Aztecs) when the source material itself is "self-attacking." So to speak.

"I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that term to my fellow creatures" --- John Stuart Mill

TPK-

I did give it another read. I gues what I meant to say is that most of the questions point out problems that are pretty obvious within the religions. IMO most religious people do think about thier belief critically and can come to the conclusion as to what the problem is and dismiss it as human error in understanding said "God", or an error in what someone wrote, or something being lost in translation, blah blah blah. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people out there that believe some of those things as concrete, but the questionaire kind of assumes that all religious people do.

Do you have any objective basis for this claim? I ask since most people do not think about ANYTHING at all critically, and given that religion is diametrically opposed to critical thought in all forms, it seems highly probable that the number of critical thinkers would be infinitely less in the religous group than in the population as a whole.

If as you say most religious folks thought critically about religion, then why is it that overwhelmingly each generation simply follows the previous with regard to which religion they belong to?

TX, you'll like this from Richard Dawkins:

“Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happens to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favor, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music; when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one.”

Nice quote, thanks.

Kren: I agree with TPK and TX here. Of all the religious people I know personally, I don't know of even one who spent some time investigating several religions, compared them critically, and chose the "best" one.

Also, fundamentalism is on the rise, especially in America, which seems to want to compete with the Arab countries in terms of fanaticism. And fundamentalists, unlike you, don't see any contradictions in the Bible. To them, it's the absolute word of God, and that's it. (*) No further thinking required.

Don't make the mistake of believing most Christians are like you. I wish they were, but they aren't. "Thinking critically" is something they haven't done for a long time, if they ever did so.

(*) Interestingly, even if the Bible had been "the word of God" at a time, it wouldn't have been the Bible we know. For instance, it is known that there were many other gospels than the 4 on the New Testament, and these four were chosen by a council. Some editing of them was also reported (a letter between early church fathers, for instance, talks about it). Modern Christianity doesn't come from Jesus; it comes from the beliefs of the faction with more political influence after Rome turned Christian.

This post was last modified: 12-22-2006 09:53 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

I've heard of all of those other lost or forbidden gospels before. Isn't that sad? Even thinking about the bible as total bullshit, it was written by somebody long ago and threy're just covering up the past even if it's only someones view, it's still something worth looking at.

I'm definitely not a Jehovah's Witness, but this doesn't represent their beliefs. They believe all people will be resurrected, and then given a 1000 year chance to become good. Anyone who is completely evil and refuses forgiveness (people's first thought is usually Hitler) is then simply and permanently destroyed. Not tossed into eternal torment, or some such fiction.

One of the problems with atheists or anti-christians is that they tend to assume that particular beliefs apply to christianity, which are only held by some christians.

For example, I see no evidence from reading the bible for the traditional "eternal conscious torture" concept of hell. The word "hell" is English, not Hebrew or Greek.

-micah
http://thereddingbrothers.blogspot.com/

One of the problem with those who believe in fairy tales is that they tend to assume that particular beliefs apply to reasonable individuals, which are held only by those who believe in fairy tales..

The not so subtle point is that you are doing exactly what you are claiming others are doing.

BTW has anyone ever come across anyone at any time who is "anti-christian?" Or is this label meaningless since it is used to discribe any reasonable individual?

This post was last modified: 01-07-2007 12:18 AM by TXStorm.

It's fine to say that people who call themselves Christians tend to be hypocrites, irrational, and superstitious. I would agree. It's a different matter to say that Christianity itself has those attributes.

I've never criticized atheism. Above, I criticized some atheists whose criticisms of Christianity are based on the lowest misplaced expressions of "christian" belief.

I don't necessarily think that ATHEISM is irrational, or that atheism is based on fallacious and wrongful criticisms of Christianity, etc. But I HAVE noticed that many ATHEISTS are irrational, and do base their rejection of Christianity on fallacious arguments.

If I were launching an attack on atheism, I would not cite the poor intellectual capability of some particular stupid atheists as evidence. But that is exactly what some are doing: criticizing Christianity based on some stupid Christians.

-micah
real christianity

You seem to be missing the entire point. Where you state explicitly that atheists "tend to assume..." (etc.) you are in fact attacking ALL atheists in a manner which necessarily implies inherent traits. Now you criticize those who are reasoning and reasonable for criticizing christianity itself because you believe you have found an error in one case by one individual somewhere some time..

This is an example of universalizing from an instance.

As to your new assertion for instance that it is not fine to point out the irrationalities, hypocritical nature, and superstitions of christianity, I would suggest that this is arbitrary and necessarily anti-intellectual, and anti-reason. To exclude xnty from critical examination by proclamation one must first have no interest in truth, and second nat place any value in reason as it must be denied to reach the point of making such a proclamation.

Why exclude xnty from critical examination? Why not point out the contradictions, inherent evils, and superstitions of xnty? What is the basis for the suggested double standard?

Well, this is not what I am intending to do. I apologize if I gave that impression. So let's start over.

Here's my point:

Christianity = set of truth propositions found in the Jewish Messianic Scriptures of the first century, expressed in various styles of language (poetic, dialogue, etc).
Many Christians = people who believe anything taught them from 21st century televangelist.
Jehovah's Witnesses = people who believe a set of truth propositions laid out for them by the Watchtower Society, including the belief that God does NOT destroy everyone but the "Witnesses", but instead gives everyone a second chance in a paradise on earth; and the belief that "hell" does not exist.
Catholics = people who believe a set of truth propositions laid out for them by the Pope and the Catholic Church, including the belief that God tortures evil people in an eternal fiery hell, and the belief that the Eucharist turns into the physical body and blood of Jesus.
Protestants = people who believe a set of truth propositions laid out by various church groups and leaders over the last few hundred years, including the belief that the Eucharist DOES NOT turn into the physical body and blood of Jesus.
Me (definitely not Jehovah's Witness, nor Catholic, nor Protestant) = person who believes a set of truth propositions about the first century scriptures, including the belief that "hell" is nowhere taught, and the "second coming" is nowhere found in these scriptures.

Christianity DOES NOT equal "beliefs of Many Christians"
Jehovah's Witness DO NOT share the same beliefs as Many Christians, or as Catholics, or as Protestants.
I certainly DO NOT share the same beliefs as Many Christians.

Saying that "Christianity teaches that non-Christians are going to fry" is not true, because neither Jehovah's Witnesses, nor myself, nor many other Christian religious groups, NOR the first-century scriptures, make such claims.

Criticize the "many Christians" all you want. Criticize my beliefs all you want. But don't criticize my beliefs based on beliefs I don't even hold to. Don't criticize "Christianity" (a set of truth propositions contained within first-century documents) by a separate set of truth propositions that did not originate until hundreds of years later.

This is like saying "Christians are stupid because they believe that the Eucharist turns into Jesus' physical body and blood when a priest waves his hand over it". Well, Protestant Christians DON'T believe this, so this is hardly a legitimate criticism of Christianity.

Would it make it easier for us to have different names for these different sets of propositions, rather than calling them "Christianity"? Because I'm okay with calling my own beliefs something entirely different...I have no particular attachment to the word "Christian". It's just the easiest one to use.

-micah
christianity doesn't teach "hell"

micah: your last comment is of interest to me, as it's something I've thought about some time ago. Indeed, I just looked through my drafts for the blog, and found an almost-finished post about exactly this subject. I had almost forgotten about it; it was your coment that made me go look for it.

Here it is: 8 possible ways to tell "true" Christians. Better late than never.

This post was last modified: 01-08-2007 03:13 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

Micah,

The errors of reasoning are too numerous to fully explain, especially since they are nested and twisted back upon themselves. However essentially you are claiming that anyone who does not hold your view is not a *real* christian.

Furthermore you play fast and loose with the claims you have made and the refutations offered. I did not address criticizing xns, but xnty which you declared is verboten by your stipulation. Your response was to say that it was alright to attach these christians who you deem to not be xns.

The notion that one must share every belief that you share in order to have a similarity is an erroneous one. Take the demoncrats and repugnicans. They fail to share some beliefs, yet they are identical when it comes to seeking greater power. Or take basketball players. They may differ in many beliefs yet share the characteristic of being good basketball players. Identity is not a requirement for shared traits to exist.

You dismiss subsets of xnty simply because they do not have all of the same beliefs as you do, which is as meaningful as dismissing those who share all of your religious beliefs, but differ on their favorite kind of ice-cream. This is arbitrary and addresses nothing whatsoever. Like it or not, they too are xns.

Furthermore, let us not get distracted by this nonsense and accept the belief which you seem to really want to convince everyone of, that we has not been discussing xnty itself, as opposed to this garden path upon which you have lead us. The criticisms stand unaddressed.

Not true. Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, and myself are all "Christians" by conventional definition.

Some of these groups are more or less rational than others, and they all have widely varying beliefs. I am not excluding these people from being "true christians". I am just saying you can't criticize the beliefs of all Christians based on the beliefs of Catholics, for example. One of the above criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses was simply NOT an accurate criticism, because Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT believe what they were accused of believing.

It would be like accusing Jewish Pacifists of wanting to kill all non-Pacifists based on the fact that religious people like to start wars. Well, Jewish Pacifists DO NOT like to start wars, so this would hardly be an accurate criticism.

If you want to generalize, and say "most Christians are like this..." or "most Christians believe this...", then that is fine. But make it clear that that is what you are doing, and don't say, "All Christians hate gays" or some such lie.

-micah
christians are not christianity

Out of curiosity, where is the strawman you are attacking? Why not just address what has actually been said?

And how do you account for the double standard by which you judge all reasoned individuals by your own ideas of those who do not choose to belief in fairy tales, myths, and violations of the law of non-contradiction?

This post was last modified: 01-08-2007 09:07 AM by TXStorm.

All I tried to say was that Christians, and certainly Jehovah's Witnesses, do not believe that God is out to destroy everyone but them. (Some Christians may, but definitely not all of them).

I guess I tried to point out that this is a mistake that is probably easy to make from the outside. I'm not really sure I understand why this has incited such opposition.

Not sure where this is coming from. As I said above, I have not leveled any charges against atheism. If the way I phrased "atheists tend to assume" was taken to mean "all atheists are irrational", then I apologize. Not my intention. My intended reading of it was: "looking from the outside, people tend to mistakenly group varying religious beliefs together, as demonstrated in the above document".

However, I do wonder if you are really reading what I am saying. You seem to consistently accuse me of beliefs I do not hold, as in:

And then:

I said it was alright to attack anyone's beliefs, just not to attack my beliefs (or anyone's elses) due to the beliefs of a third party. And I never said I deemed other parties not to be christians.

I like to get along, so let's stop arguing about words, and deal with what we're each really saying.

-micah
christianity might just be okay

Micah,

Whether at the moment that I respond you still hold the belief you espouse in the post to which I am responding, of course I cannot be certain, but it is not unreasonable to assume that you were honest when you posted the claims and beliefs, nor is it unreasonable to assume that in such a short time later, that being a matter of a few minutes, you still hold those beliefs.

In this medium, all any of us can do is take the words at face value, that is to say that we can only take them at their meaning. That is what I have done, despite your baseless accusations to the contrary. This is "dealing with" what you are actually saying. I agree that you have nearly completely ignored all of the points raised in refutation, but I have no say as to how or whether you address those. If you are interested in "dealing with" those issues, I welcome any responses.

Sigh.. And I pointed out that your claims are baseless and without merit, but furthermore you are employing the very tactic which you criticize when used by those who do not share your views.

Your claim was that ALL ATHEISTS tend to assume X. This is identical to what you complain about happening "against" xns. You pretend that all reasonable people are identical simply because they share the trait of reason, yet at the same time you refuse to accept the same sort of reasoning when applied to those who have abandoned reason and reality, that is to say persons of faith. This is the clear double standard which I have been aski8ng you about to no avail.

Speaking of points made to no avail.. seems it is necessary to repeat this bit from a previous post: "Furthermore, let us not get distracted by this nonsense and accept the belief which you seem to really want to convince everyone of, that we has not been discussing xnty itself, as opposed to this garden path upon which you have lead us. The criticisms stand unaddressed."

Sarcasm literally means "tearing of the flesh" and I would wonder why you find a need to belittle belivers.

Evil is not a thing. It is the absence of a thing, namly, the absence of goodness. Just like a shadow is the absence of light. You, like me, have dark places in you. Desiring to bring others into those dark places makes me wonder how much you must be hurting, to want to hurt others.

Thats your perspective of course, your definition by my accounts is completely backwards.
Putting aside the epic battle of the minds that was me and TXStorm's argument of morality, which I believe ended in draw .

Personally I believe at the core of all humans is evil, 'good' acting being like whitewash over this core, but, of course when enough water is added evil always shows through, anyone will kill in the right circumstances.

Secondly Mortal (I really love that name, it's so easy to twist), you have to understand that TXStorm never means any personal harm to the debaters, thirdly if you perceive a well written debate as belittling then there is no point in debating at all, we may as well go and cry into our hands every time one of our points is debunked. Yes TX could calm down a bit, but his points are based and on topic, if he chooses to add emotion to his debate then that is his choice.

Micah,

I have no idea to whom you are responding since no sarcasm appears in my last post. Your tactic here is intellectually dishonest and has a name "Ad hominem" This is the tactic by which you attack the person (usually because you have no support for your claims) rather than addressing the argument. Any perceived emotion is a false perception. As Xtimmy alludes (and then strangely contradicts) the fact that your arguments are soundly (in fact resoundingly) refuted is no basis from which to assume ill intent or any other emotional imput. As Socrates said, our ideas are not our children, do not treat them as such. You are choosing to perceive sarcasm and ill intent simply because and based solely upon the existence of sound refutation of your claims. You tried emotional bullying first ("I like to get along...") which of course did not work, now you are trying ad hominem ("attacking the man") and just as before, this tactic will not support your argument, nor change anyone's mind about the issues. All such tactic can do is reflect on the individual who chooses to employ them.

BTW an evil act is not merely the absence of a good act. Rape is evil, not because it lacks good, but because it causes harm. Harm is not the absence of pleasure either (especially when you realize that unfortunately a percentage of women orgasm during a rape).

This claim, part of your ad hominem attack, is quite a strange claim not merely because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it, but because I have been arguing against harming others and against institutions designed to harm others. What makes you think that I have suddenly adopted xnty or some other religion?

Though it will likely be answered with yet more personal attacks or other off topic trivialities, did you notice that yet again you are employing the very tactics, displaying the very characteristics which you are claiming to see in others? Where you accuse me, without any basis whatsoever, of wanting to cause harm to others etc., you have employed personal attacks and insults which are clear examples of trying to cause harm to others. (An unsuccessful attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) This is exactly the same sort of double standard which was exposed previously, simply used in a slightly different way and certainly a much more personal way given your choice to avoid the issue in favor of ad hominems.

This post was last modified: 01-11-2007 10:29 PM by TXStorm.

" BTW an evil act is not merely the absence of a good act. Rape is evil, not because it lacks good, but because it causes harm. Harm is not the absence of pleasure either (especially when you realize that unfortunately a percentage of women orgasm during a rape) ".

So you believe evil does exist?

This post was last modified: 01-11-2007 11:29 PM by NoMereMortal.

Of course there are evil acts. To pretend otherwise one would have to claim that acts such as rape are not evil, else are good. Are you claiming that rape is good?