One thing to consider: productive debates start with people acknowledging the premises from which they ask questions and offer specific points of view. The two people talking don’t need to “agree” on those premises but they do need to acknowledge them. Atheists and Christians sometimes don’t do this very well. For example, you don’t believe in Jesus in the same ways I might. That’s a premise so I’m not going to offer anything where you’d have to address that. Similarly, faith can’t be proven in the same ways that science proves things through analysis and successful repetition. That’s a faulty premise. Often atheists asks Christians to “prove it” using a scientific premise as the only exclusive acceptance of a “proof” of faith. Which is impossible. So when talking about this stuff with Christians, be aware of the expectations you have and what you ask of Christians to “back up”.

This is also late, but I’ve been reading through the comment sections of some posts from this blog, and I agree. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer???

As an atheist, I have no problem with someone attacking my views — I have a case to back them up.

To me, the unwillingness to engage on the part of many Christians belies an underlying lack of confidence in their stated beliefs.

Answer the freakin’ question!!!

Oh, and after reading, appreciating, and fully comprehending your earlier point, I was highly amused by the dearth of reading comprehension skills that subsequently arose among some commenters…

Cheers,

Emma

I rest my case.

Back to the topic at hand, and looking at another of John's statements:

–"I’m only saying that any God-based belief system that addresses the entirety of the human experience–including emotions, which are the most inexplicable part of the human experience–can be a comfort and even intellectual touchstone (or at any rate a very valuabe life tool) for the believer that the non-believer simply lacks."–

This is an argument for the utility of religion, which any educated secularist won't deny, but it says nothing about the evidence of a creator, or the credibility of monotheistic beliefs. Furthermore, it's unfounded conjecture to say that only "God-based belief systems" can address the entirety of the human experience. It presupposes that selective delusion, and adherence to restrictive iron age doctrine, is the pinnacle of the human experience. It also, assumes that the secularist is devoid the same fulfilling experiences that the religious facilitate by subconsciously ascribing feelings of tranquility, harmony, love, unity, bliss ect to a creator agent. Secularists with a good grounding in psychology, simply ascribe those feeling to themselves (or super-ego in this case). They don't need the supernatural god delusion to feel the same things. A more conspicuous example of this can be easily found on the beaming faces of Tony Robbins seminar attendees, and followers of other similar self-motivation speakers. Religion is useful for those that need it, but it's simply a psychological tool like any other that has utility. Guided Meditation, Behavioral Therapy, Buddhism, Hinduism, pharmacological means, Chakra mediation, nutrition and yoga, self-exile and introspection etc. etc. There are infinite ways to achieve elevated states of well being, self-transendence, and true harmony that can match and even exceed that of a church congregation, Sunday, full mass.

The claim that monotheism is the only path to these types of experiences, simply isn't true, and I think even the casual observer can see that when weighing all of their options, monotheism is more injurious comparatively because of the antiquated oppressive baggage of the doctrine that comes with it.

Not to mention the fact that if you had just bothered to read selections from the rest of the blog, you yourself would have noticed this very pattern, and seen that the questions you present here — yet again — are not original and have already been addressed. Repeatedly.

It almost leaves one wondering exactly who the smarter ones are, compared to those who incessently lay claim to that turf.

In the the interest of clarity, I'll simplify my question for the people that seem so confused:

Q: Because Science hasn't fully explained everything there is to know about the human brain, (the nature of certain emotions in this instance) why/how is that a compelling reason to adhere to bronze aged biblical doctrine, or believe in a creator agent?

Certainly even the most zealous among you can see the reasonableness in such a question. I can only assume that there is some desire for rational discussion here, and not everyone is content with posting inside of an echo chamber. If there's truth to be found in the author's blog, certainly a rigorous discourse could only reinforce your beliefs, and consequently most of what I'm espousing would be debunked. That is of course, if you really believe deep down, what you're all professing is tenable.

Serena, what you both wrote reminds me of the stuff my intellectually snobby friends and I used to come up with when we were high. Rereading it the next morning, I could never quite recapture why I thought it was so special.