Ok, here’s the thing. You set up a website with a place for responses. Your website takes a clearly mocking tone toward religion in general. You gather a bunch of members who agree with you and assert your scientific superiority. All that’s fine. Indeed, I’d say its even American. The thing that disturbs me is when people begin to question the RIGHT of people to “insult us, or. . . pray for us.”
That right is recorded somewhere in some dusty piece of paper – let me think . . . where could it be –
that has worked out well for us all for quite a while.
The thing that turns me off, though, and weakens your position most, is that most of you are just mean. I wouldn’t want just to hang out with you at a bar or anywhere else, because your arguments primarily seem to consist of making fun of people. Indeed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty much one big Ad Hominem argument. It adds nothing to a discussion of the validity of faith, because it is not about faith. (The person who writes that they “believe” in Atheism I’ll give a pass to on this comment.)
Even if Katie is condescending, your responses are more so. It is the lack of love that makes me question your entire premise. Indeed, your definition of hate is awfully broad. It sounds, how shall I put it, downright religious. Even if we live in a Foucaldian world in which our choices are driven by zeitgeist and social darwinism, I personally am going to choose to reject that. I will defiantly assert that even in that world, Faith is still relevant (and if you read his last interviews, I think Michel might agree).
Even if God were not true, I think I’ll still take Katie, who clearly has concern for you (even if you think it is misguided) over you guys who are interested in intellectually crushing her. Just because you have a right to speak doesn’t mean that Katie shouldn’t, and you certainly “have no right” to expect most people who respond to like you if you are going to beat on them.
Take a real philosophical position that can be debated and we’ll talk. Claiming that principles are “generally accepted” won’t do it, and don’t even begin to bring “peer review” in to support claims of truth, because “peer review”, even at its best, isn’t about truth – it’s about methodology and rhetoric.
Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
P.S. Has anyone here actually honestly asked God whether He exists? Just curious as to whether this is an intellectually honest forum or an ideologically rigid one.