(Ron) Apparently Ron is not Shy About Evasion

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

JANET
Hmm, let's see. On what did you base your assertion that atheists
become so because they can't restrain their libidos? You said it was on
the actions of the atheists you know. So, you think it's perfectly
acceptable to judge the motives of an entire group of people based on the
actions of a few, though you wouldn't judge the veracity of their beliefs?
But perhaps I misunderstood.

RON
  I said "most", not all.

JANET
I see. That somehow mitigates it. Would it be OK to judge "most"
Christians based on the actions of a few?

RON
I am talking about the unreasonable blind faith that there is certainly NO
God, in spite of the lack of any way to prove this scientifically. This is
something they WANT to believe.

JANET
No irony there, of course.

RON
 Not something that has been proven to them or can be proven. Agnosticism
would be more honest. But these people (atheists) want to believe this for
some reason. Either they haven't thought it through or they must wish God
not to exist for some reason.

JANET
Ron, if the existence of God can't be proven one way OR the other, why
should anyone accept it? Because people like you say so? The existence of
*other* invisible, supernatural entities can't be proven or disproven, so
should I accept their existence just because someone else does? Do you? It
seems to me that you are the one who hasn't thought it through.

RON
 The only thing I can imagine is that they would like to eliminate
responsibility for their actions. Where most people deviate from Christian
concepts is in the area of their sexuality. Most of them have no problem
with the other
commandments. That's my reasoning. The atheists I have known merely
confirm my theory.

JANET
So now we have gotten to it. The supporting evidence for your assertion
that *most* atheists are atheists because of their libidos is that YOU
can't imagine any other reason. In other words, no evidence, just a
belief. Maybe because you WANT to believe it?

However, you haven't addressed the apparent inconsistency that I alluded
to in the first paragraph of this post. And you snipped your own statement
that prompted it. So let's see whether I have it right. You think it's all
right to judge the motives of *most* of an entire group of people based on
the actions of a few. But you don't want us judging Christians based on
the actions of say, Hitler, Torquemada, Borgia, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim
Bakker, Bill Clinton, priests guilty of sexual molestation of children,
etc. Is this a double standard, or have I misunderstood?

• Previous message: (Ron) Apparently Ron is not Shy About Evasion
• Next message: (Ron) Apparently Ron is not Shy About Evasion
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]