I sometimes hear atheists and other nonchristians say they won't listen to arguments presented by Christians because we're only human. Do these people forget that Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, Michael Newdow and science professors are only human as well? So were Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Bertrand Russel, Charles Darwin, David Hume, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, etc. They had to put trousers on the same way, use the toilet, keep clean, sweat, had sex drive, etc like everyone else.

Your point being?

(January 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Your point being?

Why do they listen without question to the persons I listed, but not to Christians?

I listen, I just don't agree with everything they assert. Neither do I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.

(January 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I listen, I just don't agree with everything they assert. Neither do I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.

What was your opinion of Michael Newdow and Madalyn Murray O'Hair?

Newdow I've never heard of. O'hair I never cared much for.

(January 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm)Gilligan Wrote:

(January 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I listen, I just don't agree with everything they assert. Neither do I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.

What was your opinion of Michael Newdow and Madalyn Murray O'Hair?

Michael Newdow is in the right. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and was only added in the 50's to "combat communism" by asserting the US as some kind of Christian Capitalist country when truthfully it was Capitalist...but not Christian (and indeed, it is less and less Christian every year what with the growth of other religious beliefs).

Likewise with Madalyn Murray O'Hair; she was right to remove mandatory prayer from schools. Children are free to pray at school if they want to, or at home or in their spare time, but they are not forced to. To do so would be to push some form of state religion (since not all religions even have prayer in them), which is unconstitutional.

I disagree with Michael Newdow's attempt to take any reference to God out of Obama's inauguration speech though. If Obama wants to talk about his faith, it is up to him. He can even use a public speech to do it if he likes, as long as he does not impose it on others or make it seem like his beliefs are equal to the nation as a whole. If he wants to "thank God" or say "God bless America", these are his personal thoughts. As it turned out, Obama addressed all believers and non-believers in his speech, showing how he could be a truly secular President of what is meant to be a secular country.

As humans, we are prone to making mistakes, which is probably what the atheists and non-Christians mean when they told you they would not listen to arguments made by Christians. There are methods to determining the truth of things, and unfortunately when it comes to God, things get tricky. God has a complete lack of material evidence, which means that either he does not exist outright, or he does not exist materially (or else removed evidence of himself from the material world). Thus, checking for him in the usual way is impossible, and we must resort to various logical arguments, which are flawed in various ways. I will listen to Christians (or any other believer for that matter) if they present a logical argument for the existence of their deity, but if I have heard it all before, the same refuted arguments like Pascal's wager or the Ontological argument, I will probably ignore them (or else tell them to read a decent refutation).

Quote:I sometimes hear atheists and other nonchristians say they won't listen to arguments presented by Christians because we're only human.

That's truly a first for me...Anytime I've ever heard a reply such as, "We're only human" it was coming from a "Christian" trying to make excuses for the Old Testament.

I personally listen to both sides, and I have agreed and disagreed with both on many occasions. The only way I can do this, is by hearing them out. If I did not, then what would be the point in debating.....

(January 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm)Gilligan Wrote:

(January 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I listen, I just don't agree with everything they assert. Neither do I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.

What was your opinion of Michael Newdow and Madalyn Murray O'Hair?

Newdow was the guy who tried to get "under god" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that it is a good idea, seeing as, from all accounts, it is a relic of the second Red Scare that is probably out of sync with the values of today. While we're at it, I think it is best to remove "In God We Trust" from our money. Apart from being an government endorsement of religion of dubious constitutionality, it, at least according to Teddy Roosevelt, might even be sacreligious.

O'Hair on the other hand, tends to rub me the wrong way. I mean, I can understand suing for the removal of teacher-led prayer and bible study in schools, but filing a lawsuit against NASA because three astronauts were moved by the view from the moon to quote from the Bible?

The point is, I do not look at people like that as idols. I look at what people like that did and said and I either agree or disagree with that, not because of who they are.

I don't blindly follow the words of anyone. I like Hitchens' writings, but if Hitchens says we should storm the mosques and piss on their carpet, I'd tell him that he can stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine.