Originally posted by twhitehead
You are either:
1. incapable of following a conversation.
2. incapable of comprehending basic English.
3. trying to avoid answering the question.
My statements do not contradict themselves in any way. Since you clearly cannot see that for one of the reasons above, I will explain. In my initial post, I did not accuse you of using or implying the word ...[text shortened]... logical analysis of my statement and making conclusions about what beliefs I had 20 years ago.
You are either:
1. high.
2. not high, but very close to being high.
3. just plain obstinate.
This is (should be) as plain as the nose on your face (that's the thing real close to the middle of your face, above your mouth and below your eyes with two holes toward the front--- one of the holes probably has your finger in it right now). And, for some reason beyond comprehension you are unable to see the issue clearly, thankfully, we are only a scant two pages into the discussion, thereby making going back to page one that much less of an effort for you. Let's start there, shall we? On page one, in the very first post to this thread that you created, you wrote (among other things) the following statement:
"Why is it that so many Christians are convinced that Atheists like myself are somehow closet 'believers' racked with guilt?"
Immediately prior to this statement, you quoted my comment regarding your rejection of biblical truths. I challenged your assertion that my comment inferred, implied or stated in any fashion any affinity of any kind with the concept of the emotion of guilt. Instead, it was your conclusion that--- as admittedly is the case with some Christians--- I, too, held that rejection of said biblical truths automatically transfers guilt on the one so rejecting.
And yet, you persist in self-canceling declarations with regard to my position: you open the thread with a post that posits my comment as illustrative proof for your argument, then declare only subsequently was such accusation made real. I immediately challenged your argument based upon your incorrect application of my comment. You countered with a weak defense but eventually arrived at the same spot, namely, that I am saying your rejection is fueled by guilt... which I
still have not said.
Please explain why such rejection would be considered difficult to manage if I have no guilt about the matter.
Let's do this the easy way. Imagine if I (the raging theist) were to come upon evidence which convinced me of the delusory nature of God and conversely, the iron-clad proof of not only abiogenesis devoid of any outside force, but self-creating diverse life to boot. In other words, convincing evidence for the wholesale rejection of God and all that He represents to my psyche. But what if I persisted in my belief toward God? In the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence otherwise, would my rejection of the non-God world inspire even a smidgen of guilt toward this alleged reality?
Instead of guilt, I would have beliefs unsupported by my own judgement--- a house divided against itself. I fail to see where guilt would enter in this scenario. Perhaps you can tell me how you see the same.