Thought you guys would enjoy this... I have a friend who lives close to me, lovely old guy, who used to be a minister at a local church. We get on well, share gardening tips, small talk, the odd cup of coffee. I have been fascinated for a long time with finding out his story - as the reasons why he left the church seem shrouded in mystery.
Well one day, I was feeling a little mischevious and steered the conversation subtley on to religious belief, we quickly began debating the usual parry and repostes we have come to expect i.e. evolution, lack of evidence, biblical floods, big bang etc etc. Getting tired of going nowhere fast I decided to go in for the kill...asking him how he justified his belief (as he did) in the old testament namely Duter. and Levit. (I quoted chapter and verse from my "ready to hand - in case a christian comes a-callin" worse aspects of these wretched books.
He answered me as plainly as I tell you now...
" I just ignore them"
Thats it, folks.... by far the most honest answer yet provided by a christian defending the bible!
A twisted form of the question/challenge. The original was asking about a 'more honest Christian', setting a base level of honesty as represented by the sample given. A fairly honest sample, in fact, the answer of 'I ignore them' was a very honest reply.
Your version asks if there are any atheists that have been found to be honest at all, presenting the question in such a way that dishonesty is the default condition for an atheist and thus that honesty from one should be a surprise.
The original question implies just the opposite of what you have found, the question posed by me, to contain. A bias, against or for, a belief in this case the original question assumes that all others so called "christians" are indeed less honest, or dishonest. Just as my question implies.
Now as such, that, neither question is perfect, neither are the examples of purity or pure from can this debate or argument be condducted in such a form of honesty, as it is based off of the personal experience or opinion(bias) of the individual.
Now, the questions both imply that there is one,(perhaps more) that are more honest, than all the rest which are less-honest or lying. Whichever the case may be, it is not a properly posed question.
Had he, instead, placed the words, or implication that this argument is based off his opinion of honesty, this would be a different matter. However he did not, so he might as well be questioning everyone's honesty, not just those of one religion.
you're reaching way beyond the point Mac was making. certainly not that Christians are not honest as in they don't tell the truth and certainly not that they're not as honest as atheists are, but rather that they are very rarely intellectually honest about how they pick and choose the parts of the bible they want to believe, which to take only allegorically, and which they simply ignore.
understanding Mac's point makes your challenge meaningless because he wasn't making the claim you seem to think he was. whereas Mac was never saying that there's no such thing as an honest Christian, honest as in telling the truth verses lying, you now seem to be saying that there's no such thing as an honest atheist and so are asking anyone to point one out to you.
as the point would instead become that one is indeed(by view point) better than the other. In this case you are portraying that (so said) Christians as worse than Atheists. You see, trying to degrade the point made, by me, does not make it go away, instead like you have portrayed the Christians, you also become that which you mock.
But, instead of arguing the point you argue? That one is better, or more honest than. Regardless of personal perspective on the matter. In this case, the point remains, as such, that one is portraying himself, or herself, better than his or her opponent.
Each religion, including that of of Atheism, has its faults and cracks in its infrastructure. Where many like to concentrate their attacks as such, you have found one, however not just in one religion, but yours and everyone's around the globe.
Sometimes, like what is most probably meant to be the point that you are trying to convey, is that many are unsure of their belief. However, many are, and not just in Christianity, but also in Atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on. The one fatal flaw with all religion, including that of Atheism, is the unknown, or knowledge that cannot be obtain by any know method as of yet. It remains the unanswered realm of nightmares, that has driven the world apart for centuries, all for the sake of "religion."
Firstly, not believing in God is not a rigid belief, but a lack of a belief that cannot be verified. Atheism does not say "There is no God." Rather it says "I see no reason to believe in God, so I won't." It is the same logic as can be applied to anything your mind can conjure for which there is no evidence. Secondly, Atheism is not a religion, as it is not a set of beliefs, but rather the lack of just one. I'd like to know if you can bring some of the "faults and cracks" of atheism to my attention?
You have, in fact, rather proven the point. You have in this response take-up in defense of your belief, had it been right would you need to?
You have, professed faith, a belief(scared perhaps) in the fact(or so called) that Atheism is right. Had there been no perceived, or observed truth, or fact(though through time twisted), there would be no other religion, in fact there may not be any.
The diversities of the religions of religions, do not necessarily mean that they are right, or wrong. Neither does this mean that one is right over the other. As such, the logic you have falls under the pretense that Atheism is right. Thus, one of many, reasons to calling Atheism a religion.
In response to your question, instead, I would like to see if you can bring any truth or facts, out of the belief, like Moses drawing blood from a rock.
ignore my point again. interesting thing to do when we're talking about intellectual honesty. but this is entertaining so let's see where it goes!
what, pray tell, is my professed faith, at all, or belief that has anything to do with my atheism?
you're claiming that one or more religions is based on observed truth or fact? i'd love to hear more about that!
all religions can't be right but they can all be wrong. there's no evidence whatsoever for the truth of any of them. if you have some evidence for the truth of your religion or any other then i'd love to hear that too.
my atheism is because there's no evidence for gods. if you believe that atheism is wrong, since all it is is a lack of belief in gods, then, again, you'd have to provide evidence of a god to say anything about the validity of atheism. even if atheism were wrong, if gods did exist, how would that make atheism a religion? plenty of people believe they are right about all sorts of things that are wrong. does that make those things a religion? or more accurately, many people lack belief in all sorts of things that are right, does that make that lack of belief a religion?
one of many reasons to call atheism a religion? if there are so many then please let's hear them. lay them out for us point by point so that we may bask in your enlightenment. you'll have the distinction of also proving how NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!
any truth or facts out of what belief? i have many beliefs. which belief were you referring to? and back to the question of intellectual honesty, you're really going to ignore what i asked you to do and instead ask me ill conceived questions? i'll ask you again, if you don't believe that Christians very rarely are intellectually honest about how they choose what to take literally and allegorically from the bible, and what doctrine or dogma to accept or ignore the say so.
"You have in this response take-up in defense of your belief, had it been right would you need to?"
If one makes a point, that implies that they aren't sure of it? If a teacher makes a correction, are they actually questioning themselves?
Not to mention, I actually didn't defend atheism in that response, I merely defined it in some detail. You will find there is not a single sentence indicating whether atheism is right or wrong in my opinion.
Respond to a question with a question. Alright, can I bring any truth or facts out of what belief?
it's easy to ignore the point i made and continue on with your own mistaken tortured interpretation of Mac's post but the fact remains, he was only saying that Christians are very rarely intellectually honest about how they decide what to believe and what not to believe about the bible, Christian doctrine, and dogma.
if you deny that this is so then i urge you to say so. if you don't believe that atheists, agnostics, and skeptics are far better at this, not perfect mind you, then i urge you to say so.
and did you just call atheism a religion? how is atheism a religion? in what sense does anyone claim that "atheism" is perfect or that atheists themselves as a group are perfect? atheism is a simple lack of belief. it has no doctrine or dogma. there's nothing in "atheism" that dictates to an atheist what they must believe. atheism is only a statement of unbelief. if someone's a Muslim do they have one religion or thousands? one religion- Islam, and thousands more- the lack of belief in all the other world religions?