Again, thank you lamz, you understand. Hopefully you can phrase it in ways that I'm not. I do tend to come on a bit strong, but that's probably because I've grown up in the Southern US where people with these irrational beliefs are actively trying to make them public policy. I also grew up under the tuetelage of a very uncompromising Baptist pastor (which happened to be my grandfather.) I have the same fire and brimstone style of invective, except my passion is for reason and science.
Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean that it should be held in equal in value to my own or others. This leads to what is commonly referred to as moral relativism, a position I'm sure neither one of us will agree is right.
I have rigoursly come to my conclusions based on the evidence at hand; should I not defend them? I've said several times in this discussion that if there is evidence for a diety, I'd like to examine it. I am closed off to no position supported by evidence, at least until I've reviewed said evidence.
I am not trying to belittle you as a person, but I do use mockery to show the flaws in your statements and tactics (the martyr card, overplayed by apologists for centuries). As Edmund Burke said, "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."
|
Threaded Mode