President Barack Obama

To the American people, I extend to you what is sincerely the most heartfelt and incredibly enthusiastic congratulations from your Canadian neighbors on the election of Barack Obama to the office of the President of the United States of America. I know I do not speak for all Canadians but I can assure you I speak for most of them, given the core message from an unprecedented flood of emails that CBC Newsworld began receiving shortly after 11:00 PM Eastern.

President-elect Barack Obama inspired a lot more people than the American public throughout his extraordinary campaign, during the primaries and the general election: he inspired untold millions of Canadians, from coast to coast, who were drawn to his fully inclusive grassroots movement to reach across party lines and cultural divides to bring people together, united in a cause common to all: the healing of a nation and re-igniting the hope of her people, with a message for the world to not give up on America yet, that she really can be a force of good, domestically and abroad.

I am not ashamed to admit that when the west coast numbers came in and the announcement was made that Barack Obama had just been elected President, my heart soared and my vision blurred as I burst into tears of inexpressible joy. "They did it," I cried, "My God, the American people really did it." I sat there transfixed, watching Obama and his family walk out on stage for his acceptance speech, my breath hitching in my throat, overwhelmed that it really was an African-American family standing there accepting the American people's decision for them to move into the White House. It was a shockwave that circled the entire globe.

And for the next hour I shed unrestrained tears of happiness, seeing the faces of those gathered at Grant Park in Chicago, the dancing and singing and cheering, the hugs and smiles, the tears rolling down Rev. Jesse Jackson's face—and especially listening as select CNN contributors offered their thoughts on this historic moment, beginning with a tearful Roland Martin, "Obama is going to be sworn in on January 20th, 2009," he noted quietly, swallowing hard. "2009 will mark the 100th anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Obama got his start in politics in Springfield, Illinois. It was a race riot in Springfield, Illinois, that led to the creation of the NAACP."

"It's a great country," Bill Bennett said. "It's a great country and I hope he's a great President."

"I went back to look at the last speech that Martin Luther King gave back in 1968," David Gergen said, picking up a piece of paper. "It was the day before he was assassinated, and he said, 'I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land'." Gergen put the paper down, continuing, "And it seems to me, and for an awful lot of people in this country—especially for African-Americans—that Barack Obama is part of the Joshua generation, and Martin Luther King was our Moses. We're much closer to that now. We haven't ended our prejudice, but there's something about this evening and this election that I think has made an awful lot of people feel that this is the Joshua generation—we can reach something we never thought we could reach forty, fifty years ago."

"I went and looked back at the Constitution, and the first sentence talks of our desire to form 'a more perfect union'," Gloria Borger said. "We haven't done that, but we're still striving. And I think only the least gracious among us—no matter what your political philosophy—only the least gracious wouldn't say that this is a watershed moment for America."

I wiped the tears from my eyes and could not agree more. For the first time in decades, I was proud to be neighbors with the United States of America. I look at President Obama as emblematic of truly great things to come for that great nation striving to form a more perfect union.

Tracking the Debunkers (02/Nov/08)

This evening I discovered a new blog. It is not the blog itself that is new; it is simply new to me, as I had not previously encountered it nor had it brought to my attention. (I have not yet figured out a way to determine the date a blog was created when it does not display any navigation by 'date'. Someone should create a service that simplifies this area of research.)

At any rate, it should be a blog of considerable interest to me, considering what its title is: Debunking Christianity. That is surely a grand task, particularly when its founder concedes that to 'debunk' means to "show something to be false" (which he cites from the Encarta® World English Dictionary from Microsoft). Since the stated task of this blog is to show that Christianity is false, I will be tracking its entries to see if any measure up to the task the authors set before themselves.

As far as I understand, the blog was founded by a gentleman named John W. Loftus, who describes himself as a minister-turned-atheist residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and author of Why I Became an Atheist (a book I will now have to review, if I can find someone who wishes to rid themselves of their copy) whose participation at TheologyWeb (under the name 'Doubter John') has garnered him a questionable reputation. However, Debunking Christianity is home to a number of additional contributors of varying backgrounds; even though Loftus is of particular interest to me, I will critique any post regardless of its author.

From this point onward (November 2, 2008) I will examine entries made at Debunking Christianity to see if they accomplish what they set out to do.

The Spectator Speculates on Whether Richard Dawkins Has Changed His Mind (by John Loftus).

In this post Loftus reports on a comment that Richard Dawkins reportedly made during a second debate with John Lennox at Oxford's Natural History Museum (21/Oct/08, as reported by Melanie Phillips at The Spectator). However fascinating it might be to observe Dawkins burying himself in deeper layers of irrationality, none of this has anything to do with Christianity.

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Vote Your Conscience... Please! (by John Loftus)

In this post Loftus comments on the current U.S. Presidential election, lamenting on the inadequacies of the nominated candidates from the three leading parties (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian) and his angst over who to cast his vote for, since he has little confidence in their platforms or policies.

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Pat Condell: "Provide Evidence or Expect Mockery and Ridicule" (by John Loftus)

Admittedly I have not watched the embedded video to this post, but given Loftus' commentary it does not seem to meet the task of debunking Christianity anyhow. From what I can gather, it is rather Condell's advice for polemic approach. I will have to watch the video to confirm, but at this point it seems unlikely it even approaches their task.

[Edit 02/Nov/08: I have now watched the video and, indeed, it has nothing to do with proving Christianity is false. It is simply Condell describing his forceful bigotry and atheistic fanaticism. Yes, well, that is all quite underwhelming and remarkably irrelevant to anything beyond Condell's biography.]

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Christians Are Mentally Ill?

Discovering Satellite Radio

A little over a month ago I bought a Sirius satellite radio and one-year subscription. If you do not know what satellite radio is, it is a technologically advanced alternative to terrestrial radio (e.g., local FM stations), a subscription-based digital radio signal which is broadcast via communications satellite. Absolutely fantastic.

I blame Leroy. Right, you do not know who he is. Neither do I, for that matter—he is a friend of a friend who had an opportunity to do me a favour. But that neither matters nor relieves him of his odious culpability. Leroy and I took a 530-kilometer (330-mile) road trip together and he had satellite radio in his car. I quickly fell in love with it, for a few reasons but primarily because we could listen to the same station no matter how far we drove. So I had to get one for myself.

Initially my excitement was over being able to listen to Christian music, finally. Here in the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, there are four FM stations: one Pop station (Sun FM) with predictable fare, one Rock station (Power 104) with a good blend of contemporary and classic rock, and two Adult Contemporary stations (Silk FM; The Juice) playing music from the '80s and '90s plus today's hits. No Christian music stations. Zero. Yes, I know that if I bought a component stereo system I could hook it up to cable and receive Christian radio, but they are neither practical nor portable and I spend more time in my car and at work than at home.

But I love Christian music. Songs like "Finally Home" by MercyMe make my argument for me. So for the first couple of weeks after getting my satellite radio I was listening to Sirius Spirit (066) almost exclusively. But eventually I wanted to explore what else I could listen to with Sirius. There is a vast amount of music available, covering almost every conceivable genre—including Grunge, which I was happy to find—but then I discovered something that effectively kept me away from music altogether.

Talk Radio

I was instantly in love. Of course, being an intellectual elitist (which is what a person is when they have a passion for impeccable grammar and critical thinking, you see), I was obviously in my glory. When it comes to talk radio on Sirius I have three addictions, listed in order of their jones factor: CNN on 132, Indie Talk on 110, and Sirius Left on 146. (I have tried but I cannot listen to Sirius Patriot on 144, the right-wing ward. I am not retarded enough to swallow their inane bile. Their identities say it all—Sean Hannity, Cam Edwards, G. Gordon Liddy, etc. I do honestly try but I can take it only in small doses.)

My love for CNN is self-explanatory for anyone with cable television and a similar love for politics. On Sirius Left I enjoy only the Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller shows. (Stephanie kicks ass.) The other shows lean a bit too far to the left for my Centrist liking—and Lynn Samuels could be entertaining if only she would stop whining and bawling about Hillary Clinton losing the 2008 Democratic nomination, or insisting that she'll end up in a Jewish concentration camp under a Nazi President Obama. Yes, for real. Listen to her sometime.

Indie Talk (Sirius 110)

And on Indie Talk there are two shows I enjoy. I am enthralled with the Ron Silver show mostly because he is so intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable and he engages issues with penetrating depth; however, his two-hour show airs way too early in the morning here so I often miss it or catch only the last hour. And I have yet to discover when it replays. And what else? For me personally, there is usually nothing interesting on the Me & Vinnie show, and it does not feel like John Devore has figured out what to do with The DMZ yet (and there are way too many moments of long silence where no one is talking). And, sorry Joe Salzone, The Blog Bunker gets no love from me, player. (All joking aside, that is a fairly decent show. But I have usually dialed back to CNN during that time slot.)

[Note: As of 12/Nov/08, Sirius XM began broadcasting combined channel lineups across both the Sirius and XM platforms. One of the channels affected was Sirius 110, with Indie Talk being dissolved and replaced with POTUS Politics and its own lineup of programming. As a consequence, The DMZ with John Devore and The Blog Bunker with Joe Salzone are gone, while Me & Vinnie with Vinnie Politan has moved to Sirius 108. However, they kept the Ron Silver and Pete's Big Mouth shows, but renamed the latter.]

Pete's Big Mouth

The other show I enjoy is called Stand Up! With Pete Dominick (formerly Pete's Big Mouth). It is hosted by Pete Dominick, a stand-up comic from New York with a national circuit whose radio program exhibits a passion for political and social issues. His show is provocative, incisive, and compelling, due in large part to Pete being so incredibly outspoken while insisting on honesty, openness, and integrity. And also due in part to the types of callers he receives and how he engages them, including the comic relief of Deep Breath Steve and Mosquito Dan. And after a week of hearing Alexandra do the Blogcast, I am consecrating myself to her... *sighs happily*

Anyway, I listen to his show every single day, Monday to Friday from 12:00pm until 3:00pm here on the west coast. My commitment to the show pushes the threshold of ridiculous; I will do anything to avoid missing even a minute of it. Yes, it is seriously that good. Got Sirius? I highly recommend this show.

But there are disagreements between myself and Pete. Maybe that plays some part in my love for the show. To some degree. There are some things we agree on but that is somewhat predictable with me being politically Centrist (who leans a bit to the left on economic issues), because a Centrist can find some things in common with nearly anyone. And at least to some degree we are both critical thinkers; for now I think the weight of evidence indicates that I am a more consistent critical thinker than Pete is. But he could change. I just need to disabuse him of his commitment to Sam Harris.

Which is actually a convenient segue because one of the most notable points we disagree over is Christianity. We traveled very different paths—Pete went from Christian to non-believer while I went the reverse—and that leaves a lot of issues for us to disagree over, probably enough fill a small book (e.g. issues like 'gay marriage' and 'abortion' and even more fundamental issues like 'morality', never mind the obvious issue of God's existence).

Mentally ill?

And one of the absolute thorniest issues for me currently is Pete's often expressed sentiment that Christians are "mentally ill" if they believe that God has anything to do with American politics, particularly with respect to this 2008 Presidential election race. The first time he dropped this gratuitous invective on the show I dismissed it. It was a heated monologue regarding some religiously zealous comment Sarah Palin had recently made (about God vindicating Republicans on November 4th or something) and I know that a person can speak a little too consonant with their bias in the heat of the moment. Of course we all have our biases so I would never criticize someone for that, but he has expressed this sentiment on more than one occasion and nearly always with similar wording, especially that "mentally ill" characterization.

If Pete Dominick is genuinely concerned about intellectual honesty and integrity—and I think he has given his listeners enough reason to believe he is—then I have to call him on this issue and hold him to that standard which he professes for himself, and for which I have come to admire him.

Critical Analysis

So let's ask the pertinent question: Is it a fair and accurate characterization? Is a Christian who holds that belief truly 'mentally ill'? I think we can eliminate a significant portion of this discussion right from the start by Pete's implied concession that it is neither accurate nor fair to characterize them as 'mentally ill' in the clinical sense. First, I know from talking to him that Pete has no formal education or training in the area of mental health so it is probably safe to conclude, given this inability to defend it academically, that he does not mean it in the clinical sense (e.g., as would be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Second, Pete admitted to me in a personal email, "When I say 'mental illness' I might be wrong. I am sure my definition of what religion can do to influence the way your mind works could be called something more accurate" [1]. So here we have Pete conceding, at least implicitly, that the characterization worded that way is neither fair nor accurate.

Therefore it is probable that he means it as a pejorative akin to 'delusional'. But there is a pertinent question here, too: Does this hold any more water than 'mentally ill' did? As a point of fact, no it certainly does not. In a strictly clinical sense, a delusion is pathological (i.e., the result of an illness) and the characterization is admittedly indefensible at that level. But in more common usage, a delusion is a belief that is held despite invalidating evidence, a "fixed false belief." For example, if I believe that there is a cup on the table, but every relevant standard of empirical analysis demonstrates that there is not, then my belief is delusional.

So here is the question: Can this be said about Christians who believe that God is involved with American elections? Possibly, but it shoulders a burden of proof that has to be met. You see, in order to claim that they are in some way delusional, Pete has to present the evidence which invalidates their belief; i.e., he has to show that the belief is false. If the belief cannot be demonstrated as false, if there is no contrary evidence that invalidates the belief, Pete cannot appropriately deem it delusional nor defend such a notion rationally.

So a Christian who believes that God is involved with American elections (hereinafter 'X') is neither 'mentally ill' nor 'delusional' because X does not meet the criteria of either label. Period. This is the conclusion that must be confronted by anyone who esteems intellectual honesty.

There is still another angle Pete could take. He could claim that the reason why Christians are delusional if they believe X is because there is not sufficient evidence for their belief. However, there are three very serious problems with this angle.

The first and most obvious problem is that the burden of proof shouldered by the label 'delusional' is not magically met by pointing to some absence of evidence; it requires an existence of evidence which invalidates X, showing it to be false. Pointing to some absence of evidence is wholly inadequate in the rational arena. And for someone who takes critical thinking seriously, that must matter.

The second problem is even more severe. The claim that there is not sufficient evidence for X shoulders a unique and impossibly heavy burden of proof itself. Pete can claim that he has not been presented with sufficient evidence, but it is very bad reasoning to conclude that therefore none exists. It is a conclusion that simply does not follow (i.e., non-sequitur), since there very well could be sufficient evidence that Pete has simply not be shown yet.

The third problem is the most severe of all. To conclude that X is false because it has not been proven true is a logical fallacy; specifically, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ergo, for Pete to hold that X is false he must, as with the first problem I mentioned, present contrary evidence that invalidates X. Without such contrary evidence, Pete must admit X could be true—which, please understand, is a very different thing from believing it himself—that it is not necessarily false nor is it demonstrably false.

According to generally accepted standards of sound reason, Pete must admit—in order to sustain intellectually honesty—that Christians who believe X may be of very sound mind, that they may have good reason for believing it, that they are not necessarily mentally ill nor anything similar. He may not have been presented sufficient evidence for X himself, but he has no evidence to the contrary either.

In Closing

As a closing thought, I should point out that Christians who believe X cannot rationally be called simpletons either (or any scathing synonyms)—at least, not on account of X itself because that belief is actually an in-depth conclusion drawn from a unique complex of strong philosophical arguments (and, where required, responsible exegesis of the relevant scriptural texts).

Although I readily agree that some Christians could be characterized properly and fairly as simpletons, it is only when they believe things blindly or uncritically; e.g., they believe X but they cannot reason why (e.g., other than their pastor told them, for example), or they claim the Bible says so but are incapable of showing where. This point must be stressed: If they are simpletons it is because of some rational or heuristic shortcoming on their part. It is not because of X itself, for there is nothing simplistic or immature about X. That I can certainly defend.

One must remember that there are roughly two billion Christians in the world. Whatever your experiences with Christians have been, it was necessarily a very small segment of an otherwise vast population—especially if that experience was with Christians in the United States, and especially if it was with Christians of a particular sect (e.g., Catholic, Baptist, etc.). There are a very large number of Christians (e.g., over one million Presbyterians, like myself) who believe X and can state precisely why, describing exactly the philosophical argument—and the biblical argument, if required, showing where the Bible states quite pointedly that ultimately it is God that decides who comes to power and who is unseated from power (e.g., Dan. 2:21, Rom. 13:1, etc.). They are not simpletons, they are not delusional, they are not mentally ill, and they do not deserve such pejoratives.


----------
[1] Dominick, Peter. "RE: I'm doing a blog post involving you." Email to the author. 28 Oct. 2008.

Inconsistent Skeptics

Some skeptics do not adhere to critical thinking as consistently as they should. In my experience, atheistic skeptics exhibit this lack of consistency the most. Critical thinking is not a commendable heuristic if it gets abandoned whenever it inconveniences a pre-existing bias. Rather, critical thinking ought reshape one's bias, not be tossed out when it threatens one's bias.

For example, a skeptic who adheres to critical thinking consistently (Smith) would refuse to accept some proposition P if there is inadequate epistemic warrant for it. Now, one who does not adhere to critical thinking consistently (Jones) would likewise refuse to accept P at first. Where the inconsistency in critical thinking arises is when Jones takes it a step further and asserts that because P has not been proven true it is consequently false.

This is made more obvious where P stands for "gods exist." It is consistent with critical thinking for Jones to reject P if for him there has been inadequate epistemic warrant for it. However, Jones promptly abandons critical thinking if he asserts that P ("gods exist") is false because it has not been proven true; that is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. And he further contradicts critical thinking if he also affirms that a lack of evidence for P is somehow itself evidence for ¬P ("gods do not exist"). An absence of evidence is an empty set; 'nothing' in support of P is still 'nothing' when used as an attempt to support ¬P.

Smith is the consistent skeptic when he refuses to affirm that P is true but also refuses to affirm that P is false. It may be false. Or it may be true. The lack of adequate warrant either way means he cannot affirm either; Smith remains agnostic on the question. Jones, in order to be consistent with critical thinking, must do the same. If what Jones wants to affirm is that P is false, critical thinking dictates that he must provide evidence that either (a) supports ¬P or (b) invalidates P.

"I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments 3

The following blog post is a direct response to some of the intriguing comments I have received regarding my criticism of Stephen Roberts' infamous Quote. I think the points being raised are too good to be buried in a Comments field which is inevitably lagging further and further behind in the flow of the blog, comments which certainly deserve their own light of day.

Anonymous said (his comment here):

"The Quote" does not imply that your reasons for dismissing other gods are the same as Stephen's reasons for dismissing yours. It merely states that when you UNDERSTAND your own reasons for dismissing those other gods, you will UNDERSTAND his reasons. I suspect that since you do not even UNDERSTAND the quote, you will not make the mental effort to UNDERSTAND either his reasons or your own.

First of all, I would encourage you to assume a name. Make one up if you have to, but please assume a name by which I can identify your arguments. Anyone can contribute as "Anonymous" and I would have no way of knowing if it was you or not.

Now, regarding your comment. I already know the Quote does not imply that our reasons are the same. The content and context of the Quote and Roberts' elaboration thereof both make that pretty obvious. My criticism argues from the understanding that the Quote implies our reasons are similar. That is the implication the Quote makes, and it is rather candid about it. So I will let the readers determine for themselves whether or not I understand the Quote, particularly by my responses here.

(Keep in mind that my criticism regarded the Quote and, by extension, Roberts' elaboration of it. My criticism did not, and cannot, regard your own views nor your perspective of the Quote. Any objection that indicates how my criticism fails to account for some perspective of yours only demonstrates a misunderstanding of my criticism itself. I am certainly able to offer a critique of your perspective on a given subject but that is not what I had done; yet it is my criticism of the Quote that you had responded to.)

What does the Quote itself say? I am going to direct our attention to the verifiable facts here, in an effort to keep this discussion relevant and intellectually honest. What does it actually say? It says that when you "understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods," then you will "understand why I dismiss yours" (emphasis supplied). And then Stephen Roberts himself stopped by this blog—which really made my day, quite frankly, since I had not heard from him in so long—to elaborate not only on the meaning of the Quote but also on what for him, as the originator of the Quote, is the real "meat" of it; specifically, that "if [theists] really understood why they don't believe in the other gods they might understand why their god is hard to believe in too" (emphasis supplied).

These facts are not really disputable. Anyone can independently verify them. Right? Especially when I openly provide the relevant links. The Quote was already fairly clear, and Roberts himself made it clearer still: the fundamental point is that if the Christian theist openly and honestly understands "why" he dismisses all the other possible gods then he will understand "why" the atheist dismisses God (or finds him hard to believe in, at best). In both the Quote and in Roberts' elaboration, the "why" test (reasoning) is the real meat or force of the Quote.

This fact becomes even clearer when one sees there are two questions which the Quote logically and naturally raises in our minds. The first question is, "Why does the atheist dismiss God?" And the second question is, "Why do I (the Christian theist) dismiss all other possible gods?" As I understand it, and Roberts likewise pointed out, the second question essentially acts as the springboard to the answer for the first question; i.e., answering the second question ought to enlighten and enable the Christian theist to discover the answer for the first question.

And my contention has been just this: "Is that actually the case?" Is there any real correlation between the answers to each question? Put it another way: Is it true that by honestly examining and understanding my own reasons for why I dismiss all other possible gods I will be enabled to understand why the atheist dismisses God? The force of my contention, of course, is borne upon the rather unequivocal answer, "No, there is no correlation." Because—

[and here is the essential thrust]

—if I honestly examine and understand my own reasons for why I dismiss all the other possible gods, I actually discover that they have no possible relationship with the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. None, zero. For example, my reasons (for dismissing all other gods) operate from the presupposition of God's existence. The epistemologies and heuristics on either side of the debate differ quite drastically, and at their most foundational levels. Not even the ground or nature of logic itself bears any similarity between us; for the Christian theist, logic is grounded in the very nature of God, and this cannot be said for the atheist—any atheist whatsoever. This is precisely why the theist's reasons (for dismissing all other possible gods) do not, in fact, offer any insight of understanding into the atheist's reasons (for dismissing God).

But notice something compelling here, equally relevant and interesting. The force of this argument can also be shown from the opposite side; i.e., flip the scenario around and it still bears this truth out. If I genuinely and honestly understand the atheist's reasons for why he dismisses God, based as they usually are upon an epistemology grounded in some form of empiricism, I discover that his reasons for dismissing God do not have any kind of relationship to my reasons for dismissing all other possible gods. Our epistemologies are grounded and structured quite differently. And that is the very point of my contention, originally and now expanded upon in this post: the theist's reasons and the atheist's reasons are not even similar, much less the same. This is why the second clause of the Quote is unintelligible. It is simply false (i.e., it bears no correspondence with reality). As I had said previously, the reasons why Roberts rejects God and the reasons why I reject "all other possible gods" are very different: "Being informed of Stephen's reasoning does not inform anyone of my reasoning, nor vice versa."

The first clause of the Quote is incoherent. And its second clause is false. I cannot understand why anyone would want to champion the Quote. (Well, actually I can, but that is the threshold beyond which my skepticism gives way to my cynicism. My skepticism I can defend; my cynicism is more rant-ish.)

jaydecay57 said (his comment here):

I believe the point of the quote is to illustrate the fact that any believer in a monotheistic religion can so readily dismiss all other gods as easily as any atheist, yet can cling so tightly to one slight variation from the others without providing an acceptable reasoning behind their choice.

I do not believe the Quote has anything to say about whether or not a theist has the intellectual honesty and integrity to provide "acceptable" reasoning behind his choice. (And I can level a significant and substantive criticism against atheists pontificating to others what "acceptable reasoning" is.) Let me explain what I mean. Whether the Christian provides his reasoning or not, the Quote is asking him to authentically examine and understand his reasons for dismissing all other gods, and that by doing so he will better understand the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. And my criticism shows how this fails the test, i.e., that it is simply not true, that it does not correspond to anything in reality.

Truthfully though the REAL point of the quote (I feel) is to make atheists smile and say "That's what I've been trying to say all along!"

Perhaps. But what those atheists "have been trying to say all along" is still incoherent and false, respectively, if it mirrors the first and second clause of the Quote. Like I said, if the Quote is really just humorous nonsense that atheists find entertaining, if it has nothing substantive or real to say about Christian theology, then I should not find any atheists arguing against me if I post about how nonsensical the Quote is. They felt the same way before I even posted, right? As I said before, "It is amusing but incoherent. Great. A smile, a nod, and now let's move along to authentic, intelligible dialogue." Why waste time over something everyone agrees is neither intelligible nor substantive?

I will give you that believing in a god is logical. However all the logical reasons to believe in a god are inherently demeaning to the believer (Fear of the unknown, gullible, ignorant, and other admittedly mean sounding words) which may be why it is difficult for some to see that it is in fact rather silly to say no other god exists except the one you have arbitrarily chosen from the myriad of other choices.

Evidently you have not listed "all the logical reasons to believe" because I did not find in your list any of the reasons argued for in systematic theologies or philosophical texts, nor any of the reasons I happen to hold. That is a lot to have left out. I think maybe there are logical reasons you do not even know about (I do not want to assume there are some you know about and willfully omitted); critical reasoning would dictate that as an opportunity to exercise a tone of intellectual charity, admitting there could be logical reasons you have not informed yourself about, instead of rashly declaring that you have listed all the logical reasons to believe. I am assuming, of course, that you hold critical thinking skills in high regard when dealing with competing views. I hope it is a correct assumption.

How do you expect not to be ridiculed?

Because I champion reason, critical thinking, and skepticism. Perhaps fundies might ridicule me for that, but not fellow thinkers and skeptics. In my limited experience, they usually demonstrate appreciation for such things being championed, not ridicule. And no, "skeptic" is not a synonym for "atheist."

...you actively chose one God that fits you and ignoring all other possibilities, called it truth.

You assume I ignored all other possibilities. I am not sure you have a defensible basis for such an assumption.

But you are correct, I do not determine truth. I discover it—which can happen when one pursues it.

If one [god] is absurd, it inevitably means they all are.

It is not obvious how that follows logically. I would love to see the premises that render such a scandalous conclusion.

This is all rather mean sounding, I know, and I do apologies a little, but under the guise of the internet I am safe from your e-god's scorn...regardless, I can take it as easily as I can dish it out, so feel free to bash my grammar and liberal use of ellipsis. I also fully realize that I'm just as ignorant as you and we're all in this thing together...I'm just able to admit and embrace it.

I fully and genuinely appreciate your contributions. When people leave their bigotry outside and enter into an authentic conversation on ultimate issues, it can plant seeds that end up shaping the ideas and beliefs of the participants. That is what this blog is all about: the conversations and experiences that shape my itinerarium mentis.