How To Fail At Atheism
Well this is quite an amusing story, so I thought I’d share it with you. Earlier this month, I received a message on Facebook from a girl named Jennie.
I just have to thank you. In ways you may never understand, you helped me to become a Christian.
I used to be very much like yourself. Then, two weeks ago, as a result of reading your blog, I became one of those people you hate. Thank you so much. You are probably at least a little offended by this, but I felt I needed to let you know.
Obviously I was a little confused (and concerned) about her predicament. Confused because she seemed to think I hated Christians, and concerned because she had become one. I asked her to explain, and we sent a few messages to each other. She said I came across as very angry in some of my posts; I said I was only angry at justifiable things (like parents murdering children, or newspapers lying about students). She even prophesied this blog post, saying, “I’m sure you’ll be making fun of me on your blog eventually”. Of course such a prophecy was self-fulfilling, because her final response to me, where she finally explained how I was responsible for her Christianity, was just too funny not to post.
There are way too many things that led to my becoming a Christian, now that I look back. But this is how you contributed to that:
One day, while reading your blog, I just found myself wondering how anybody could spend so much time fighting against something they don’t believe exists. You have so much stuff on there and thinking that the purpose of 99% of it, is to inspire people to be against religion just seemed pointless. Not necessarily *inspire* but that’s the best word I could find for it. I started wondering what the point was. Why waste so much time and energy on criticizing religion? If there really is no God (the backbone of religion) then there would be no need to fight religion so hard. I don’t believe in unicorns, but I don’t create entire blogs dedicated to debunking the belief in them. I just think its silly to believe in them, so I ignore those who do. You, and many other atheists, however, find something in religion that makes you want to fight against it. Many atheists claims its a silly myth, but then why fight silly beliefs so hard? That got me thinking that there was something more to it than a silly myth.
You say that you’re only angry at justifiable things, but around the time I started wondering all this stuff, I saw a bunch of pictures you had of you throwing snowballs at signs about Jesus or something like that. That really confused me. There seemed to be no point whatsoever in that. Again, if its just a silly myth, why don’t you just ignore it? But you seemed unable to ignore it.
I mean, I understand if its just about the violence that religion causes, especially if you think of it as pointless because its all just a silly myth. But if you think about it, there’s just as much violence caused by anti-religious people. So why not just advocate against violence?
So I started digging. Christianity was the only religion that answered both questions. It gives the answer for why you can’t seem to ignore religion, even though you think of it as a silly myth. Also, I found the difference between religious violence and anti-religious violence. Violence in Christianity isn’t condoned by God or the Bible. The people who are using violence for religious reasons are doing it for the wrong reasons. However, without religion, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re killing people or not. It’s actually logical to kill people.
There’s much more to this whole thing, but I really couldn’t explain it all to you. I hope this makes a little sense, but if it doesn’t, please respect my beliefs and views. That’s another thing I had trouble with when it came to atheism: most atheists are incredibly intolerant and rude. But, seeing as how you kept pressing for an answer, I’d hope that you wouldn’t mock the answer I gave you; even if it doesn’t make sense to you.
One simply stares in disbelief how any atheist could actually ask questions like these given the amount of answers that have been repeated by the “New Atheist” movement in the last 10 years or so. Jennie finds my blog (and all other atheist blogs) pointless, since we are arguing against something we don’t even believe in. Like her, I don’t believe in unicorns, and I’m not going to create a blog about my disbelief in unicorns, because 99.9999% of the rest of the population shares my beliefs. There is no point preaching to the crowd. However, if suddenly the majority (or heck, even a large minority) started believing in unicorns, I’m sure there would be blogs talking about the reasons unicorns don’t exist. The point of a blog is both to spread a message, and challenge a viewpoint. Political blogs will challenge the opposition parties, Christian blogs will challenge other religions and atheism, and atheist blogs challenge religion (or just theism, but that’s not important). Jennie’s point is self-refuting if you simply change the word “atheism” to any particular belief, be it religious or political. There are Christian blogs that write reams about evolution, and they do this even though they don’t believe in it. Jennie wants to live in a dream world, where nobody talks about other people’s opinions, and debate doesn’t exist. Such places are anti-democracy, and are terrible places to live.
The second point I want to make about why atheists blog so much against religion is that we do have a belief; we believe that religions are dangerous. It’s a justified belief, because we have the evidence to prove it. Religion is the only reason Madeline Neumann is dead, the only reason why it took so long for Daniel Hauser to get cancer treatment. In Jennie’s dream world, we would not criticize the dangerous actions of the parents, and the children would die. Being nice only gets you so far; at some point you have to start disagreeing with people for society to make the progress it has.
Jennie seems to think that pictures of me throwing snowballs at Jesus posters is disrespectful, and she’s right; it is. I don’t care though, because fundamentalist baptist churches like the one in the picture are constantly disrespectful of everyone who doesn’t share their views. They blame homosexuals for everything under the sun, and use lies and manipulation to convert people. How exactly have they earned my respect? The other reason I took the picture was that I found it funny (as did my friends who I were with), and I thought some people online might have found it funny as well. It’s only a poster. I wasn’t attacking some poor pastor, I was attacking an idea, showing that nothing can be held sacred. To make you feel better, I did pelt quite a number of snowballs at my atheist friends that day (more so than I did at Jesus), so hopefully you feel like my actions were balanced.
Jennie asks “why not just advocate against violence?” instead of against religion that causes violence. I think people should attack the causes of violence, because the fundamentalists seem to think that anything goes if it is done for the will of god. They preach against violence too, but then they attack abortion centers. It is clear that reasoning with these people against violence isn’t going to work; they don’t believe their actions are immoral. If a group of atheists bomb a church, I will decry such an act, and do whatever I can to help the victims. I can advocate against violence and still advocate against religion; I see them as two different issues.
Jennie closes her argument for Christianity with a rather bizarre statement that it is “logical to kill people”. She doesn’t give any explanation of the logic used to deduce such a statement, but I think it probably goes along the lines of “How can you be good without God? You can’t. Therefore God.” Such arguments are of course ridiculous; morality doesn’t come from scripture (thank goodness) but from a combination of instinct and the society we live in. We don’t kill other people because it is harmful to the society in the grand scheme of things. Over time this has developed into the feeling of immorality we have today. There are many instances in the Bible where God orders the massacre of millions of people, so have humans actually outgrown the childish nature of God? I certainly like to think so.
Well, hopefully you haven’t found me too “intolerant” or “rude” Jennie. Hopefully you’ll read my response with an open mind, understand the errors in your judgement, and realise your argument simply makes no good points worthy of your conversion; it was based on misunderstanding and long-refuted claims. Well, one can hope.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
If christianity is the only answer to your questions, it's time to look at the questions.
It's easy to see how someone would choose Christianity as the solution to the "there must be a god if everyone is fighting against one" line of thought – there is heavy social pressure to select that as the theology of choice. What if our fair lady had chosen Hinduism? She would have absolutely no social suport network (outside of moving to India). Let's face it: it's tough being an atheist. We throw snowballs at fictional characters and everyone is appauled. Christians form entire political action groups around removing the rights of anyone who isn't living life their way, and they are given lots of power and money. Life is much simpler for those who go with the flow.
We also talk , write and think about religion because it is forced down our throats daily as opposed to unicorns. We have references on our money, groups try to get it into our schools, in science class. Our secular government opens with a prayer and during the month of December, Christians want everyone to celebrate their version of the winter holiday. I would love to think of god as often as I do unicorns, but unfortunately, at this point, I don't have that option.
While I have some problems with the stock arguments that the newly-converted Jennie put forth (how many preachers have used the old "if people fight it so hard, it must be real" line?), I have a pretty big problem with everything you said, as well. For every statement you made, there was a sweeping generalization to go along with it. "They" do this, "these people" do that, so many problems are caused by "them." These people, these churches, these beliefs.
Not that such generalizations aren't convenient. I'm sure it's easier to fight a belief system if you approach it with the idea that all those who claim to be a part of that system belong in the same group of stupid, problem-causing people. How hard can it be to debate with someone if you go in convinced that nothing they say has any merit? How much harder would it be if you decided that being a Christian doesn't automatically translate to being a gay-bashing, intolerant idiot who takes the book of Genesis literally? Sure, a lot of "them" are. But some aren't.
Some Christians know the line between religion and government, and don't want their religion or anyone elses to be hindered or helped by the political system. Some Christians interpret the Bible with the thought in mind that it was written by human beings who had their own agendas and cultural contexts. Some Christians understand that evolution is just a fact of life. Things change from generation to generation, and some changes give some creatures better chances of survival. Duh. Some Christians know that homosexuals are just people who made a different choice, and that whether you agree or disagree with–or are completely indifferent to–that choice should really not affect how you treat homosexuals. Oh, and some of us don't make fun of other beliefs, even atheism, because we believe that if anything is sacred, it's human dignity, and that depriving an individual of that dignity–even in your own mind–is a sin if anything is.
Religion – a magnet for the gullible and the stupid.
In support of your point that religion is dangerous you cite the example of a woman who prayed, rather than taking her daughter to hospital. This seems slightly ironic, given that in the West, monks, nuns, and other people of religion collectively had a large influence on the development of hospitals in the first place. Over time the state has taken over much of what was already started. But were it not for religion, Madeline's mother might arguably have had no option other than to pray.
I think that religion is dangerous like football is dangerous. In the hands of hooligans it can be a rallying point for substantial acts of violence. Even so, it would be a mistake to condemn the whole on the basis of the actions of a few.
The "fight" or whatever for me isn't about religion, it's about how people who are religious sometimes treat atheists. Unfortunately there are bigoted people who have to be reminded that they aren't better than us just because they believe in a magic sky fairy. Also, we have to combat the misinformation that is spread about us to try to remove assumptions based on prejudice and ignorance. For example, we're not inherently amoral, we don't eat babies, and we don't even necessarily "hate" religion (how can I hate something I don't believe in?) it's just that religion has been the source of a lot of bullshit that we've had to put up with. If we were fighting to sit at the front of the bus, I'm not so sure people would see our outspokenness as pointless.
One does wonder about some atheists, they seem to elevate atheism to a religion in itself. Given that one cannot positvely disprove the existence of god, atheism can itself be as irrational as any religion. Can't see that applies to yourself but then I have only been reading this a short time.
Agree with previous commenter, I really don't give a damn what people believe as long as long as they are just pursuing their own salvation. Unfortunately, they insist on trying to impose their views on the rest of us by lobbying for laws that affect us all and why should we put up with that?
How many times have we heard about "attacks on Christianity"? When you look at the news item they are never about atheists invading prayer meetings but objections to prayers at public meetings or support for the idea that gays or women seeking abortions should be allowed to make decisions about their own lives or that the seriously ill should benefit from genetic experiments on a blob of tissue that is as much a complete human being as a bit of skin scraped from an elbow.
Unicorn believers don't control the government, SCOTUS, small towns, big cities, neighborhoods, etc. If they did. I would "fight" against them – even though I don't believe in unicorns.
Goodness. It is really NOT that hard to understand – yet Christians seem to fail at it almost every time.
Why? Are they really that stupid? Or are they just more comfortable deceiving themselves?
Killing people is "logical"?!
Well, that's Jennie's problem, right there. She's clearly a raving psychopath.
That would be the "gnostic atheists" of which I am not a member. I do not "believe" that there are no gods, I "disbelieve" that gods exist. One is active, the other is passive.
My position is of agnostic atheism. I accept that I cannot disprove god, yet I am not simply going to believe in it because of that.
I think Jennie has been a Christian for a lot longer than she says, her arguments are standard apologist fare.
It would be nice if some of these Christians spoke up a little more :)
Anyone who re-converts to any religion was never really an Atheist, they were just an Agnostic who needs to belong to something, no matter what it happens to be (see: scientologists).
The unicorn analogy made me chuckle. The reason there's no need to stand up against the believers of unicorns is that, well, there are none… and the ones that do believe certainly pose no real threat to society… I think, I have to admit to not having fully researched that opinion.
There are a lot of self-proclaimed Atheists out there who are simply bonkers. They may not believe in God but they still feel the need for a mob-mentality to validate themselves, which is ironically what is so dangerous about religions. They're cats trying to herd other cats, lol.
Evolution is not a fact of life. I don't believe in creationism, but after researching evolution enough, I just can't believe it. There are too many holes and inconsistancies. Maybe its partially true, but its definitely not a fact of life the way it is now.
"because we believe that if anything is sacred, it's human dignity, and that depriving an individual of that dignity–even in your own mind–is a sin if anything is"
I have a hard time believing that you don't deprive a person who does make fun of other beliefs or their dignity. This tends to be the irony to that belief. You think that everyone has a right to their belief, as long as they don't believe that anyone else is wrong. That's a belief in itself and even when you claim to be non-exclusive, you end up exluding the people who don't agree with you.
I find it ironic that you ask her to read this with an open mind after you say that her response was "just to funny." You obviously weren't reading what she had to say with an open mind, I don't know why you expect her to give you the respect that you denied her. You also take a lot of theories, and use them as fact here. You're idea of morality is a THEORY. Don't state is as a fact.
I agree with Kenzie. And I really don't think that you can read Jennie's mind. How do you know if she "wants to live in a dream world, where nobody talks about other people’s opinions, and debate doesn’t exist"?
That's an assumption and it is very unfair of you to make it.
Just because you can't believe it doesn't make it not true. There are no holes in the theory at all. If there were, it wouldn't be a widely accepted theory at all.
Perhaps you could name some holes and inconsistencies, and then perhaps we can take a look at them and see what you find confusing about it. Most people I find seem to have these simple misconceptions about evolution, and this forms the basis of the "holes".
Oh I read it with an open mind, but having an open mind does not mean you have to accept absolutely everything, or to agree with absolutely everything; this is a misconception.
Having an open mind means you will look at the idea, but you will not jump to any sort of conclusion without first thinking about it. When someone tells me they saw a ghost, I will not simply believe them without evidence. This isn't closed mindedness, it is open mindedness. If I blindly accepted the assertion that someone had seen a ghost, I am closing my mind to other explanations.
Being open-minded does not stop you from making fun of beliefs, especially when they are plainly ridiculous. We make fun of people who think that 9/11 was not Muslim terrorists, or who think that Atlantis actually existed, or who believe that Noah's Ark was an actual event in history. These people have absolutely no evidence to back up anything they say, and if they keep insisting they are right despite the mountains of evidence against them, they deserve to be made fun of.
Misconception: A theory cannot also be a fact.
Reality: Whilst the word "theory" in general means an idea or opinion, the word in science means something completely different. It means a well documented explanation that has supporting evidence. The theory of evolution is the *theory* that explains the *fact* of evolution. We know evolution happens, we've seen it and we have a record of it. The *theory* attempts to explain how it happens.
My idea of morality is a scientific theory, based on what is currently thought by sociologists, biologists, etc. It is an attempt to explain how morality came to be, and it does it a lot better than the idea that it came from scriptures.
How do I know she wants to live in a dream world? Because one of her reasons why she objected to this blog was that I write against something. If she simply doesn't want me to write against religion, but is fine with allowing other religions to write against me (or homosexuals, abortion, etc) then she is a hypocrite.
I assumed she wasn't a hypocrite, and so she must concede that she wants to live in a world where people are not allowed to speak about other people's ideas. If religion is off the table (as she seemed to want), then why not politics? Why not sex? Where do we draw the line?
I don't see anything in this that would lead me to believe that she's ok with allowing other religions to write against you.
Dude, you do know that there's a difference between the evolution that happens every day and the evolution that scientists claim created everything on earth. There's micro and macro evolution. Only a person uneducated in evolution can deny mircro evolution. But just because micro evolution extists does not automatically mean that macro evolution does.
And wow, look at the arrogance on this guy. You're idea is better than the idea that came from scriptures? I'm not saying that scriptures are right, but they're backed up by a lot of educated people, too. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean its not as good as your theory.
wow…you obviously have not done much research into evolution. its falling apart at the seems. a lot of SCIENTIST aren't even defending it anymore. and one of the reasons that its widely accepted is because its the only non-insane explaination they have.
holes:
-the second law of thermodynamics is contradicted by evolution
-the fact that the earth is moving away from the sun at a rate that would mean that if the earth is as old as evolutionists claim, the earth would have been either too close to the sun to allow any life, or it would be ON the sun
-the fact that no one has ever found a transition fossil. which is REALLY crazy, because if evolution is correct, we would be finding WAY more transition fossils than regular fossils. and, i know you're going to give me some examples of supposed "transition fossils" but those have never been proven to be, without a doubt, transition fossils. and even the few you could name doesn't count because evolution claims that there would have to be many many more.
I think the worst part about all of this, is that this woman obviously meant for this to be a private corrospondence. Yet, you posted on your blog for the whole world to see. That, my friend, is rude. Maybe if you had asked and she had given you permission, it would be a whole other story. But from what I gather, you didn't get permission from her. You have given her absolutely no respect.
You make a lot of assumptions here, Adrian Hayter. Why not just stick with facts? Or hasn't anyone told you that its arrogant to assume you know what's going on in someone else's head?
"Just because you can't believe it doesn't make it not true"
Oh, the hypocracy!! Have you never applied this to yourself, Adrian? Or is everything you believe true?
I never said she did. I said that if she did (hypothetical) then she would be a hypocrite. The only other alternative is that nobody ever writes anything in objection to other people, and this is her dream world that I do not want a part of.
On the contrary, I've done a lot more research into evolution that you apparently have. You accept the claims of creationists without even doing a tiny bit of research into them. Let's see how your "holes" stand up to reality shall we?
The 2nd Law states "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Too bad for your "hole", the Earth is not an isolated system; we receive energy from the Sun every single moment of every single day. If evolution really contradicts the 2nd law, then so does life itself! This is a typical creationist blunder.
True, the Earth is moving away, but nowhere near fast enough to prove a young earth, or to mean life would not exist.
Here is a brief but detailed report concerning the actual figures: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?num...
This is yet another example of a common creationist argument. They increase the numbers, hope that nobody notices (scientists always do) and then try to create an argument that the Earth is young.
A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that was in the process of evolving into another creature. Since evolution is happening all the time, and populations rather than individuals evolve, every single fossil could rightly be called a transitional fossil. Even Homo Sapiens (us) are a transitional form between Homo Erectus and the creatures we are to evolve into millions of years from now.
The claim, like all others, that there are no transitional fossils is yet another creationist lie, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Transitional forms are not creatures that are "half species X, half species Y", they are creatures that are evolving into a new species.
So much for your holes…
On the contrary, I've done a lot more research into evolution that you apparently have. You accept the claims of creationists without even doing a tiny bit of research into them. Let's see how your "holes" stand up to reality shall we?
The 2nd Law states "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Too bad for your "hole", the Earth is not an isolated system; we receive energy from the Sun every single moment of every single day. If evolution really contradicts the 2nd law, then so does life itself! This is a typical creationist blunder.
True, the Earth is moving away, but nowhere near fast enough to prove a young earth, or to mean life would not exist.
Here is a brief but detailed report concerning the actual figures: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?num...
This is yet another example of a common creationist argument. They increase the numbers, hope that nobody notices (scientists always do) and then try to create an argument that the Earth is young.
A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that was in the process of evolving into another creature. Since evolution is happening all the time, and populations rather than individuals evolve, every single fossil could rightly be called a transitional fossil. Even Homo Sapiens (us) are a transitional form between Homo Erectus and the creatures we are to evolve into millions of years from now.
The claim, like all others, that there are no transitional fossils is yet another creationist lie, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Transitional forms are not creatures that are "half species X, half species Y", they are creatures that are evolving into a new species.
So much for your holes…
On the contrary, I've done a lot more research into evolution that you apparently have. You accept the claims of creationists without even doing a tiny bit of research into them. Let's see how your "holes" stand up to reality shall we?
The 2nd Law states "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Too bad for your "hole", the Earth is not an isolated system; we receive energy from the Sun every single moment of every single day. If evolution really contradicts the 2nd law, then so does life itself! This is a typical creationist blunder.
True, the Earth is moving away, but nowhere near fast enough to prove a young earth, or to mean life would not exist.
Here is a brief but detailed report concerning the actual figures: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?num...
This is yet another example of a common creationist argument. They increase the numbers, hope that nobody notices (scientists always do) and then try to create an argument that the Earth is young.
A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that was in the process of evolving into another creature. Since evolution is happening all the time, and populations rather than individuals evolve, every single fossil could rightly be called a transitional fossil. Even Homo Sapiens (us) are a transitional form between Homo Erectus and the creatures we are to evolve into millions of years from now.
The claim, like all others, that there are no transitional fossils is yet another creationist lie, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Transitional forms are not creatures that are "half species X, half species Y", they are creatures that are evolving into a new species.
So much for your holes…
On the contrary, I've done a lot more research into evolution that you apparently have. You accept the claims of creationists without even doing a tiny bit of research into them. Let's see how your "holes" stand up to reality shall we?
The 2nd Law states "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Too bad for your "hole", the Earth is not an isolated system; we receive energy from the Sun every single moment of every single day. If evolution really contradicts the 2nd law, then so does life itself! This is a typical creationist blunder.
True, the Earth is moving away, but nowhere near fast enough to prove a young earth, or to mean life would not exist.
Here is a brief but detailed report concerning the actual figures: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?num...
This is yet another example of a common creationist argument. They increase the numbers, hope that nobody notices (scientists always do) and then try to create an argument that the Earth is young.
A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that was in the process of evolving into another creature. Since evolution is happening all the time, and populations rather than individuals evolve, every single fossil could rightly be called a transitional fossil. Even Homo Sapiens (us) are a transitional form between Homo Erectus and the creatures we are to evolve into millions of years from now.
The claim, like all others, that there are no transitional fossils is yet another creationist lie, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Transitional forms are not creatures that are "half species X, half species Y", they are creatures that are evolving into a new species.
So much for your holes…
I always apply this to myself. I freely admit (both in society and on this very blog) that atheism may be entirely incorrect, and that there may be a God. I don't claim things are absolutely true unless there are mountains of evidence backing them up, and even then I do it tentatively.
That's why she said this earlier on in the conversation then:
If someone makes bad arguments in a private correspondence to me, I will post them on my blog (using only their first name) as I always do. Unless we've previously agreed to some kind of private-only deal, I don't see anything wrong with posting stuff here, especially since someone has (a) made the effort to tell me something about my blog, and (b) has said they understand why I would make fun of it.
Just a thought on one of your examples. I don't agree with this parents' reasoning, I do agree with not giving Daniel Hauser chemo. Chemo is more dangerous than cancer and is not a cure, and you're chastising them for keeping their son out of it? If they shot their son in the head "for his cancer" would it be any worse? I can quarantee you it would be less painful.
They may have been wrong to rely on religion, but they were right to keep him out of chemo. Never the less and above all else they were still wrong to not let him make his own decision.
Well I'm sure the cancer survivors who got cured through chemotherapy would love to know that you think so low of it. I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject than the millions of doctors who use it.
That said, Chemotherapy is far from perfect. In some instance it can be life-saving, in others it can only extend the months or years people have left. Luckily for Daniel, the Hodgkin lymphoma he has is one of the ailments curable by chemotherapy.
why even include their first name? you could have easily have left that part out. and even if she said she understands why you would write about it, that doesn't mean she wanted her private words to you published on the internet. i think that its a bit unfair of you to assume she was ok with it. did you even warn her before hand that you would be writting about it? i'm not talking about telling her after the fact, i'm talking about saying something like, "hey, i'm going to be publishing everything you said online." or maybe giving her the chance to say she would like some parts left out. did you let her know that you give yourself the rights to publish it unless you have agreed to privacy? maybe if you had she would have asked for what she said to be kept private. you said that you had recieved a message from her. that implies that she wanted this kept at least some what private. she didn't post it on your wall for everyone to see–she opted for a more pirvate way.
you're argument is an either/or argument. the problem with those arguments is that it gives the reader two options, and makes it seem as if those are the only two.
you are making ASSUMPTIONS by saying there are only 2 options here. you don't know what kind of world she wants to live in. you can only ASSUME unless she's already told you specifically. don't assume. it's unprofessional and makes your argument weak.
that would make you an agnostic then.
right now, i only have time to get into the last hole. look at the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. the theory of evolution creating the world we live in is macro evolution and has never been observed. the evolution that happens every day is an example of micro evolution, which doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is correct.
Meh. At the end of the day she contacted me. She knew I ran a blog (her entire first comment was about it). I respected her privacy by getting rid of her last name. If she comes here and lets her full name be known, that is her right. There is currently no difference between what I have done and writing the same thing but putting "anonymous" next to it, or claiming some other story.
No, there are plenty of options here, but only two if she doesn't want to be a hypocrite. Here are the options:
1) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that nobody should write anything negative about anything else.
2) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that is is fine for people to write negatively about anything else.
3) Jennie is a hypocrite and thinks that people A shouldn't write negative things about people B, but people B should be able to write negative things about people A.
There are plenty of options within the last option (3), but it would make her a hypocrite. As soon as you start favoring one opinion over another, we have fascism.
Now, I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and who wants to be a hypocrite?), so she either must say that if atheists cannot talk about religion, religion cannot talk about atheists, or that we can all talk about anything we want.
She made it quite clear that she didn't want atheists talking about religion, so there is only one option remaining. Of course, if she wants to be a hypocrite she can enforce a fascist viewpoint, but she didn't come across as such a person to me.
Oh, and assuming only makes your argument weak if you don't assume form both sides. I did that; I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite and that she was and evaluated where her argument would lead her in both cases.
Yes, an agnostic atheist. I've never denied being one. Your point being?