Atheists, Christians and Values (was Re: Frank Turek vs . . .)

[Sean McHugh]

%%

Roger Pearse wrote:

> Sean McHugh wrote:

>> Jani wrote:

>>> Sean McHugh wrote

>>>> Mark as "I" wrote:

>>>>> "blofelds_cat" wrote:

>>>>>> [Sean wrote]

> These days I rarely have the time to spend in usenet; and it is, in
> fact, difficult for me to access.

Perhaps this is the traumatic event in your life that we were
wondering about.

> But I happened to see this post.

Of course you did, when you did a search on your name.

> Much of it seems to consist of accusations against me personally;

Though this post has been a huge improvement, personal attacks have
generally characterised Roger's posts in our recent exchanges. His
accusations and intense ad hominem are apparently deemed relevant
and appropriate by him. Objections to it get labelled as irrelevant
and/or abuse.

> [Much of it seems to consist of accusations against me personally;]
> curious, given that I am not present.

Stop exaggerating. Of course you are present.

> Much more of it consists of irrelevancies; rather than discussing
> the position of atheists, it talks about Christianity. Why not
> reformed Buddhism, or the state of American politics? it would be as
> relevant.

How are to we determine if atheism leads to inferior values, if we
aren't permitted to compare it to the alternative to which it is
supposed to be inferior? Why am I so ready to make that comparison
while Roger is so reluctant?

> Is it really too much to ask that, when the value-system of atheism
> is queried, that we discuss the value-system of atheism? And not try
> to justify it by attacks on Christianity?

For starters, there is no such thing as the 'value-system of atheism'.
Atheism isn't a system and it has no intrinsic systems. It makes no
sense to even talk about atheism like that. To see see if atheists
have a moral/ethical disadvantage, it is necessary to compare it to
the non-atheism which would supposedly provides the advantage. How
hard is that to understand? Pearse's main criticism is that societal
values change, hence atheists' values as well. But this is a senseless
criticism if the alternative theism/Christianity/agnosticism/whatever
similarly changes with its social environment. Pearse might then just
as well point at bus drivers and accuse them of having changing
values. In addressing the alternative, I have shown clearly how
Judeo-Christianity has changed, how it has evolved and continues to
evolve. Along with everything else, it too has followed social change.
Its teachings and values are anything but fixed and absolute.

> Whether the attacks are justified or not, they are irrelevant.

So, it's irrelevant to criticise Christianity but continual
gratuitous attacks on atheists and atheism are relevant?

> I don't really know how I can put that in simpler terms.

And I don't know how much more simply I can put it. In the real world
it's like this; you don't get to put atheism on the table, implying
that it has an inferior value system, without having it compared to
the value system to which it is supposedly inferior. To demand that is
to demand deception and absurdity. The very fact that you are so
vehemently loathed to allowing the comparison shows that you realise
that the comparison would be to your disadvantage.

> There are certain standard techniques used by dishonest posters,
> which I naturally snip. One is to bore on at great length and
> dubious relevance, rather than address the issue. Can anyone
> seriously suggest I should do otherwise?

They have "seriously" suggested it, Mr. Pearse, but you refuse to
listen. They have been telling you what they think of your behaviour.

> Another is to change the subject to "why Roger Pearse is a Bad man".
> Again, is there any reason why I should do more than simply snip the
> abuse and point out the irrelevance?

Complaining about abuse again! It's called 'projection' and Pearse
provides a copybook case study:

http://www.abess.com/glossary.html#P

~ projection: A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which
~ what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously
~ rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

> A final trick, when faced with these obvious measures to keep
> discussion on-topic, is to complain about snipping.

Just in case the reader didn't follow that, Mr. Pearse is saying that
when he typically snips all the other person's responses, causing the
other person to complain, that other person is employing trickery! I
think he is serious.

> The post also starts with a statement, attributed to me, which I did
> not make and attempts to refute it. This is known as the strawman
> technique, of course.

Now that is not the truth, Mr. Pearse. With "a statement, attributed
to me" you are implying that someone has falsely quoted you. Not so;
Jani simply expressed what were clearly _her_ thoughts as to what
your position was. As it turns out, her inference was the same as mine
and as it turns out, we were both correct. In this post, in addition
to saying that atheism only has convenient societal values, you are
submitting that Christianity has _absolute_ morality to which it can
appeal.

~ Christians believe in absolute morality. Atheists do not (although
~ Sean made an appeal to them earlier, when he referred to "more
~ moral"). [Pearse]

Of course, referring to greater morality is not espousing absolute
morality. Whether it is or isn't, Pearse is saying that Christians
believe in absolute morality and atheists generally do not.

This "statement, attributed to me" charge is a reminder of your
false charge that I had been editing your statements. It might have
originally been a mistake on your part but it became a lie when you
didn't retract it.

> Someone enquired why I consider many atheists are contemptible.

Atheists should value Mr. Pearse's contempt. By the way, the
qualifier "many" is a new addition. Previously it was general.
As I said, this is a nicer post.

> Experience of their methods of argument and behaviour -- of the
> kinds above -- naturally tends to bring them into contempt.

I suggest you take on board what observers (including Christian) have
thought of your behaviour in these engagements and that you at least
start speaking only for yourself.

>> <snip>

>>>>>>> My Christian opponent has seemingly been arguing (hard to
>>>>>>> tell) that atheists _only_ have changing secular societal
>>>>>>> (hence intrinsically ungodly) values. Which is it? Mark, can
>>>>>>> you please retain the attributions? Don't ask me. I find the
>>>>>>> question too abstract/difficult to grapple with. iow "Big
>>>>>>> thoughts hurt my brain." Unnecessary. I think you will find
>>>>>>> that very few people wish to ponder such questions. With the
>>>>>>> opponent to whom I was alluding, _I_ still can't understand
>>>>>>> his 'values' point.

> [snip]

>>> [If you mean Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an
>>> objective, unchanging standard whereas] atheists can only draw on
>>> societal values, which are flexible, inconsistent, and may
>>> contradict themselves from one era / culture to the next.

> I haven't generally adopted this position.

You have implied it and in this post you have confirmed that both
parts reflect your position. Once again:

~ Christians believe in absolute morality. Atheists do not . . .

> I don't generally discuss Christianity, you know.

How nice for you. One recalls your oft repeated sneering charge that
atheists won't/can't discuss their atheism. But your reluctance to
discuss Christianity is acceptable, right?

> Christians believe in absolute morality, and try to act on that
> basis. Being human, they don't manage to live up to this. The values
> held by Christians are always influenced by society,and sometimes
> grossly so; but then they have periods of history such as the
> Reformation in which they tear this up. But the point is that they
> appeal to an objective standard. The same is true for any
> long-established philosophical or religious system.

But believing one has absolute morality and actually having a source
of absolute morality, are two very different things. If there is no
Christian God, then the Christian does not have absolute morality. So
straight away, Mr. Pearse's argument needs to assume God's existence
as a premise in his arguments against atheism. But regardless of God's
existence, I have abundantly demonstrated that the Christian does not
have absolute morality and has no absolute/fixed moral/value standard
for appeal.

> But all this is irrelevant, to me. My query, simply, is what is the
> alternative which atheists actually live by?

And I told you, we, like you and other Christians, use societal values
(including memetic evolutionary). We also, like you, appeal to
personal values (probably to a larger degree, as explained elsewhere)
and to philosophical values (again probably to a larger degree, as
explained elsewhere). We also rely on empathy and altruism and that is
hardwired through biological evolution. The fact that we aren't
dragging around morally dubious biblical values, is hardly a
disadvantage. Even Christians realise how bad those values are and
realise they have to reject them - which is what they do and what you
do.

> Never mind whether the Christians are right;

Obviously, the atheists here, do mind. And I suspect, that like me,
they don't like being told what to mind and what not to mind - in
other words, what to think and what not to think. There is a good
chance that that's why we are atheists and you are a Christian.

> let us try to express, in words, what atheists actually DO (NB: not
> the words, which tend to vary). My contention is that atheists,
> lacking any other rule, adopt some subset of the values of the
> society in which they live. Nor, of course, are they the only ones;
> agnostics do as well. Everyone does.

Yes, "[e]veryone does", except atheists and most agnostics aren't
burdened with the cognitive dissonance of trying to entertain the
unacceptable and often diabolical, biblical values. If we really
intend to examine the values difference between us, we need to also
examine those golden biblical values that you hold dear.

> But... if we consider "societal values" as the real default
> religious position of our age, then we need to look at it squarely.
> Until we do, we will infallibly talk tosh.

Wrong. Secular societal values don't constitute religion and atheism
is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

> I have rarely seen this contention seriously addressed, and never
> satisfactorily. This is one reason why atheists do not command my
> intellectual respect.

Apparently Mr. Pearse still thinks that having his respect is
something to be valued.

> If they spent any serious time thinking for themselves, they would
> at least have thought this much out.

Hang on, you have it back to front - boy oh boy, do you ever. 'Sheep'
is the word that the New Testament uses to describe Christians, not
unbelievers. Christians are supposed to be sheep. Didn't you know
that? Peter, the one giving you tentative support, knows it. Being a
sheep should be one of your 'values', Roger

It's theism that has schools where the children are taught their
position. It's Christian theism that has Sunday school, to make sure
the kids are well and truly indoctrinated. It's theists that are
supposed to go to some church/synagogue/mosque at least once a week
for a belief top up. I have already argued that many atheists like
yours truly and Theo (not sure about Barry's history) have, after
their own investigations and thinking, rejected what they previously
believed. Dan Barker was a prominent minister, who became troubled by
inconstancies in the Bible. He eventually had to admit to himself that
he no longer believed. That is how one becomes an atheist, by
realising oneself, that all the stuff with which one has had been
indoctrinated, is a contradictory, nonsensical, morally dubious house
of cards. Becoming a Christian is very easy and generally just entails
early induction and regular processing. It's hardly even voluntary.
Individual thought is ideally suffocated.

>> I have recently and in the past assumed the implication of that
>> very juxtaposition, Christian permanence versus atheistic arbitrary
>> convenience, and have responded accordingly. Mr. Pearse's
>> systematic response is to snip the reply, say, "inability to
>> answer, noted" (or similar), "Change of subject noted" (or similar)
>> add several smug and pretentious emoticons like "<Chortle>", accuse
>> the other person of lying, add other various insults and
>> denigration, insanely charge that other person with abuse, be
>> thoroughly rude, obnoxious and supercilious throughout and then
>> claim victory - repeat all of that over and over, all over the Net.
>> Others have made the same observations. This link provides one very
>> astute example:

>> http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...

>> That is the exact formula he has used here. It isn't an aberration.
>> Mr. Pearse has shown, and continues to show (do a search in
>> Google), that even remotely reasonable dialogue with him is
>> impossible. I request that we not pretend otherwise.

> Two paragraphs of personal invective; irrelevant.

That comes from the person who interjected with immediate personal
slurs, and whose every post up to this one and since, has been
remarkable for its invective. Here is what Pearse considers to be of
proper relevance:

~ Little Sean was accused of being a moron. Instead of addressing it,
~ he's frantically trying to change the subject. If that doesn't work,
~ he tries lying. [Mr. Roger Pearse]

Note that Mr. Pearse has never actually pointed to a lie. Ironically,
that tells us where the lie really is.

>>> It might have been a fair point for debate when he first offered
>>> it, but it's now become something of a mantra on his part.

>> Given his outrageous behaviour, "something of a mantra" is a
>> generous understatement, if not a euphemism. This page is another
>> place that Mr. Pearse has left his mantra:

>> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/christia...

>>~ 9. Don't try to tell them "well you can't disprove god" because
>>~ then they will start trying to disprove it. Instead ask them to
>>~ define [sic] why they just live in some convenient conformity to
>>~ the societal values of the time in which they happened to be born.
>>~ Watch them deny it, wriggle, change the subject; in short
>>~ demonstrate that they have no rational basis on which to criticise
>>~ anyone. [Roger Pearse]

>> Starting with, "Instead ask them . . ." Mr. Pearse rudely appended
>> his 'value' droppings onto 9, which was a suggestion from another
>> contributor. In doing so he changed its whole flavour, making 9
>> clash with the spirit of the rest of the page. The page's creator,
>> "OldMan" apparently quickly recognised for the vitriol it was and
>> removed it the day after it was deposited.

> Two more paragraphs of invective; again irrelevant. This time
> discussing whether or not I should have edited some page or other in
> some other forum. That can have no possibly relevance.

So innocent and perplexed! Roger's posts have been going go way
beyond invective - I was simply stating verifiable facts. His posts
have been comprising mostly of incontinent diatribe. Here was his
introductory post:

~~ So, for much the same reason that you are an a-thorist, I am an
~~ a-yahwist. [Sean to Peter]

~ You are a moron, cupcake. [Mr. Pearse to Sean]

And:

~ When you can discuss the values by which you live in a rational
~ manner, you will earn the right to discuss those of others.

Before issuing his charges, Roger would seem to look in a mirror.
That is so with each and every one of them.

>> Anyway, seeing as you have provided your interpretation of Pearse's
>> argument, I will take the opportunity to address it in a sane and
>> civilised environment.

> Note the value-loading "sane and civilised."

Pearse's uncivilised and unstable behaviour is something that has been
noted by many others and not only here. This post is a vast
improvement but it doesn't erase his previous or subsequent efforts.
Had it not been for the latter, I might have answered this post
more mildly.

>>~ Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an objective,
>>~ unchanging standard whereas . . . [Jani]

>> I have already refuted that with Mr. Pearse but I'll start from
>> scratch with all the points. I will argue against the proposal with
>> the following, upon which I will afterwards expound:

> Note the irrelevant claim to authority - "I have already refuted".

The refutation is evidenced by Mr. Pearse's side-stepping or snipping
anytime I have shown the massive changes within Christianity - and I
don't only mean changes just within its constituency, but even changes
to its doctrines.

>> 1. Contrary to Pearse's implication and your inference of the same
>> (correct IMHO), Christianity does not have a permanent and absolute
>> set of values.

>> 2. Christians have themselves adopted societal values.

>> 3. Many of the values that Christians would identify as being
>> theirs, have been hijacked.

>> 4. Most biblical values, that modern society rejects, are vastly
>> inferior and many are evil.

> Note that these four points discuss, not atheism, but Christianity.
> Let us presume Christianity is untrue. It advances the case against
> my point - that atheism amounts to conformity - not one iota.

What Mr. Pearse seeks to do - make no mistake about it - is to suggest
that atheists have inferior values. But he doesn't want to do it by
subjecting his alternative, Christianity, to similar scrutiny. He has
yet to provide any justification for what is apparently a double
standard and a painfully illogical method. Points 1 to 4 deal with one
half of what both Jani and I (I'm pretty sure anyone else) inferred
from Roger's innuendo, that Christianity enjoys superior values to
atheism. They expansion (below) on the four points outline points
(above) show that Christianity hasn't at all got a strong position on
values, ethics or anything else. As for the charge that atheism
amounts to conformity, I shown below not only that atheists are not
bound by conformity and that they are far less prone to conformity
than Christians. But even the statement, "atheism amounts to
conformity" is massively absurd. How can unbelief in anything, let
alone something that is still popular, amount to conformity? Atheism
amounts to what it means, unbelief in God and/or gods, and that is it.

>>> [atheists can only draw on societal values, which are flexible,
>>> inconsistent, and may contradict themselves from one era / culture
>>> to the next.]

>> I notice that in the first part, you are talking about morality
>> while in the second part, you are talking about values. Mr. Pearse
>> only uses the more broad, 'values' and never resolves the issue. I
>> also guessed he meant morality, but if so, why not just say,
>> 'morality'?

> Because there are many matters of behaviour which are not a matter
> of morals, ethics, right or wrong.

He tells us what they're not. How about Roger tells us what they are?

> The question is "how do we choose to live our lives; where do we get
> our values from; what shapes our way of life."

This still doesn't tell us what the alternative 'values' are for the
choice. Give some examples of 'values', please Mr. Pearse. Note also
that Mr. Pearse proposes, "how do *we* choose to live our lives"
(asterisks mine), but wants to have himself and Christianity exempt
from his 'values' scrutiny. He has been demanding to have atheism on
the table and have that compared to some arbitrary, presumably ideal
but unspecified/unidentified standard using unspecified values that he
only identifies as 'values'.

>> Anyway, to that second part I would submit the following arguments,
>> again later expounding.

> Note how this tends to make the whole post far longer, and spread
> the points over a wearisome length. This sort of behaviour tends to
> raise integrity questions. After all, faced with a simple point,
> every politician flannels. It's a technique of evasion with which we
> are all familiar.

Making false complaints every other line, which is Mr. Pearse's
'technique', is itself a cheap form of 'evasion'. If I had just left
it at that, Pearse would have had no hesitation in charging that I
simply asserted. Those numbered points essentially provide an
outline/index of 10 points, of an average of 1.5 lines each. Big deal!
This again shows that Mr. Pearse will look for anything to complain
about and will try to twist it into something devious. The following
is from a page on how to present debates:

http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/resources/guide_deane.pdf

~ Beginning a speech with a quick introduction and then giving an
~ outline of the speech’s structure (and sticking with it) develops an
~ involvement on the part of listeners, an understanding of where the
~ speaker is heading and what they are trying to achieve.

That also applies to debates. It goes onto explain, with several
points, how an outline helps to get the structure across. Where I used
the outline/index, it also showed how they were to be divided in
relation to Jani's comments. Now if he is to be consistent, Mr. Pearse
will charge that all this is irrelevant. In his mind, only his
opponent's defences against accusations are irrelevant, not the
accusations themselves. Such is Mr. Pearse's logic and his Christian
'values' set.

>> 5. Societal trends are part of nature and evolution.

> Surely; but to argue from "something happens" to "something is right
> to happen" is a simple fallacy.

So would Mr's Pearse like to tell us his alternative and how he knows
that it isn't fallacious? There really is no such thing as absolute
right and absolute wrong and even if there were, neither Mr. Pearse
nor other Christians would know what it is. As I point out below, just
as in biological evolution, ideas/developments that aren't beneficial,
are eventually filtered out.

>> 6. Atheists don't simply hold values that are convenient to the
>> society into which they are born.

> It will be interesting to see some proof of this assertion.

See! Just as I said, Mr. Pearse would charge the index/outline as
being assertions, precisely why I needed to expound (below).

>> 7. Arguing against atheism, on the basis of 'values', is a red
>> herring.

> Discussing what atheism means, on the ground, seems to be a rather
> important point all by itself.

Atheism means not believing in God or gods, period!

>> 8. Atheists can arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that
>> of average society and/or Christianity.

> This assertion, if. There is a scale of values, measured how? Is
> this an appeal to an absolute morality? If so, where does it come
> from?

But can't I equally ask, how you determine - assuming for the moment
that atheists only conveniently conform to society's values - that
that is bad? What are you using as a measure, Mr. Pearse? Nominate
your standard. Returning to that point:

~~ 8. Atheists can arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that
~~ of average society and/or Christianity. [Sean]

~ This assertion, if. There is a scale of values, measured how? Is
~ this an appeal to an absolute morality? If so, where does it come
~ from? [Roger Pearse]

Why absolute? Why not relative? Anyway, I'll apply to the examples
any standard you nominate as being genuinely meritorious. How's that
for a deal? By the way, did you see the word, "arguably"?

>> I will also add the following comments to Pearse's criticisms:

>> 9. Mr. Pearse hasn't presented a logical criticism of societal
>> values.

> Perhaps because I have yet to get atheists to agree that they live
> by them.

But I definitely have maintained, that though it isn't the only thing
that atheists live by, atheists do adopt societal values (as do
Christians). I have just conceded that again. So why are they
inferior, Mr. Pearse and by what means have you determined that
inferiority? Produce your measuring system and justify it.

>> 10. His charges would also have to apply to agnostics.

> Indeed they would, and many others.

>> Now to expound:

> Am I the only one faintly reminded of a dreary old pulpit here? Are
> all atheists renegades from a really tedious religious upbringing?
> (which I never had, I should add).

Who would doubt that Mr. Pearse had an 'interesting' upbringing?

>>~ Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an objective,
>>~ unchanging standard whereas . . . [Jani]

>> 1. Christianity does not have a permanent and absolute set of
>> values.

>> Christians no longer espouse slavery and they no longer kill
>> witches. [snip]

Roger snipped the the rest of the Christian injustices that were
committed with the sanction of the Bible.

> Here we get into a long anti-Christian rant.

What is it, Mr. Pearse, do facts make you uncomfortable? I am saying
that Christians no longer behave like that. Would you want to argue
that they do? That they used hold those dreadful ideals (or 'values')
with biblical sanction, is unequivocal.

> As I remarked above, it is irrelevant. That Christians think they do
> have a single standard, and are trying to adhere to it is beyond
> question.

No, Roger, Christians aren't trying to adhere to it because they
realise that to do so (to follow the Bible) would be abominable.

> That they often fail, are often influenced by the society in which
> they live,

If they succeeded - if they weren't influenced by society - they would
still be polygamists, they would be killing witches, homosexuals and
people who work on Saturday. They would be also killing unbelievers.
These days, the hate of the zealots is limited mainly to Internet
Inquisitions. Modern society has turned Christian zealots into more
civilised people - even you, Roger.

> is a fact. When that society grows depraved, they join the Nazi
> party; when it improves, they become campaigners for total
> abstinence or whatever. But ... for an atheist, where is the rule
> that keeps dragging them back to the centre?

Funny you should bring up the Nazis. The Old Testament teaches that
exterminating inconvenient groups is a good thing. Accordingly, on the
Nazis' belt buckles were the words, "Gott mitt uns". It means, "God is
with us".

> Christians may be a pendulum, but atheists... where is the centre?

Christian values aren't represented by a pendulum but by a timeline.
There is no actual centre. Atheists don't have a value centre either.

> I assert that [for the atheist] it is societal values, whatever they
> are.

As I have said, an atheist will _likely_ hold societal values
(including altruism and organisational) and personal values (including
inherent empathy). He might also hold philosophical values acquired
through his own study. These generally require a level of thought
beyond the social domain. The Christian will have the same as the
above, except to that he will add the Bible. However the Bible becomes
a dead horse to drag around. So much of its instruction is so unjust
and diabolical that it needs to be diluted away with societal values.
The Christian will also have his personal values, but on average, this
will be to a lesser degree than with the atheist. The Christian, who
will usually receive formal indoctrination, is told what to think much
more than the atheist. Finally there are philosophical values. The
atheist is more likely to be interested in philosophy and philosophy
is not generally kind to Christian doctrines/concepts (e.g. blood
atonement, original sin, hell). Christian philosophical analysis is
usually just apologetics in disguise.

>> The original Christian, more aptly named Messianic Jews, were still
>> devout Jews. To the displeasure of the James' Jerusalem Church, St.
>> Paul made many changes and watered down the Judaism. He was
>> arguably the real founder of Christianity, despite never meeting
>> the man Jesus. Though James and his followers were supposedly the
>> actual witnesses of Jesus, they stuck to their traditional Jewish
>> faith. That Church died with the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
>> It was the end of that line (think about that). Another dramatic
>> religious change occurred with the promulgation of the Gospels.
>> They contained a Jesus of which Paul was hopelessly ignorant. Paul,
>> despite his vast contributions to the New Testament, does not
>> invoke Jesus teachings and deeds, not even when it would be
>> illustrative to a point he is making.

>> Christianity and its values were changing rapidly then and have
>> been changing and branching ever since. I was taught at school that
>> it was a sin to eat meat on Friday. Before I left school, it was
>> only a sin to eat meat on Good Friday. I was taught that if I
>> missed going to Church on Sunday, and died before going to
>> confession, I would burn for eternity. Before I left school, the
>> fires of Hell were extinguished by my Christian teachers.

>> One also notes the disharmony within Christianity. Normally, in
>> these groups, the most hostile disagreements on 'values' occur
>> between Christians of different denominations. Clearly,
>> Christianity and its values are anything but absolute and
>> unchanging.

>> The Bible itself is a product of several different societies and
>> value sets. It contains plenty of vagueness, contradiction and
>> ridiculous instruction that is irrelevant today. An example of the
>> last is the commandment not to wear a garment of two different
>> fabrics:

>> Deut 22:11: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of
>> woollen and linen together."

>> Mostly, where the Bible isn't a passenger to supposed 'Christian'
>> values, it is just unwanted luggage. Ultimately, the Christian will
>> himself be dependent on personal, organizational (mostly his
>> church) and societal values even in just deciding which biblical
>> bits to play down or ignore.

> Six paragraphs of anti-Christian fault-finding, all of it
> second-hand; all of it irrelevant.

All of it 'second-hand'? My own accounts are quite firsthand!! Then
there are the OT items. Are you saying that the Old Testament is
secondhand? We are talking 'values', Roger. Your peerless self
appreciation might be fooling you into thinking that atheist values
are up for criticism, and that your alternative, Christian values
aren't, but that's you deluding yourself. I showed how Christian
doctrine changed profoundly just in the time I was at school. I showed
how messianic Judaism (earliest 'Christianity) was changed by Paul,
how Paul's doctrine was different from that of James' ('brother of the
Lord') Jerusalem Church and how the Gospels that came later, were a
whole new thing again. Christianity has been evolving since it began.

>> 2. Christians have themselves adopted societal values.

>> Christians adopted monogamy to fall in line with Greco-Roman
>> culture. This can be sufficiently supported by quoting Augustine.

> Interesting. Please support it, then, by doing so. Quite how
> Augustine would know it might be relevant to ask, but let's see the
> evidence first.

Roger should read the whole thing before typing. I quoted Augustine
below. Note again how he will criticise brevity as assertion and will
criticise detail as irrelevant.

>> It can also be well supported from the Bible, which contains
>> several uncritical, if not supportive, references to the polygamy
>> of its heroes. Another value is democracy. This is another societal
>> value that is supposedly foundational to Christianity, that has
>> come to it again from the Greeks who invented it and had it as an
>> integral part of their society before anyone dreamt of
>> Christianity. Even our modern judicial system had its origins in
>> ancient Greece. So here is another 'convenient' societal value that
>> the constituents, believer and non-believer, have adopted:

>> http://languages.cnu.edu/Classicalstudies.htm

>>~ We can trace the roots of our form of government and legal system
>>~ back to the Greeks and Romans, as well as contemporary concepts of
>>~ education, engineering, medicine, science, philosophy, art,
>>~ architecture, and literature.

>> To see what early Christian culture would have looked like without
>> the Greco-Roman culture, you only have to look a the Jews of the
>> period, remarkably useless barbaric non achievers in thought and
>> practice. Their backwardness is proudly on display in the Old
>> Testament.

>> Even today Christianity is evolving and playing catch up to modern
>> philosophies. Only recently, in the USA, the country whose
>> _official_ motto is, "In God we Trust", voted a black man as
>> president. I can remember a time, when in that Christian country,
>> black folk couldn't even sit at the same end of the bus as white
>> folk.

>>~ In Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery,
>>~ Stephen R. Haynes writes:

>>~` By the mid-1960s, the legal status of segregation had been
>>~` settled in America's courts and political chambers. But
>>~` segregation's staunchest proponents continued to fight, insisting
>>~` that integration was the leading edge of a social revolution bent
>>~` on "overthrowing God's established order."

>>~` As conservative Christians reacted to what they regarded as
>>~` perilous change, they pressed Nimrod's legend into service.

>> One can also note here, that at the time of segregation, the values
>> of the minority black Christians' 'values' can't have harmonised
>> with the majority white Christians' 'values', otherwise why was the
>> segregation wanted by the majority white Christians? This again
>> shows that Christianity doesn't provide a fixed and absolute set of
>> values.

> Eight paragraphs which consist mainly of criticising Christians for
> NOT HOLDING THE SOCIETAL VALUES OF THE USA IN 2008.

Note that Roger is talking about white Christians and talking about
their changing *societal* values. He dare not appeal to their the
biblical values because he knows that the Bible sanctions slavery.

> An atheist living in 1900 would consider much of this contemptible
> and immoral. An atheist living in 2100 may well do the same.

Unfortunately for Pearse and his wishing well, atheists have
traditionally been the opponents of slavery:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistmoral.html

~ The call for the abolition of black slavery came not from Christians
~ but from atheists generally. Slavery was abolish in France in 1791,
~ not by the church, but by the atheistic founders of the revolution.
~ In the U.S. the early critics of slavery, Benjamin Franklin
~ (1706-1790), George Washington (1732-1799), Thomas Jefferson
~ (1743-1826) and John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), were all either
~ atheists or Deists. Later the abolitionist cause was taken up by
~ such people as Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), a Deist, Raplh Waldo
~ Emerson (1803-1882), a Unitarian minister turned atheist, and
~ William Lyold Garrison (1805-1879), an atheist. In England, the
~ battle for the abolition of slavery was fought mainly by such as
~ Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) -
~ atheists all.

Atheists have led the way with social reform rather than followed it.
It is the Church that would drag things back to the past.

> Likewise note the assertion that morality evolves. This again
> amounts to acceptance of the statement that I am making; that
> atheism consists of conformity to whatever is fashionable.

Please get a clue Mr. Pearse! Atheism consists of not believing in
God, period! Got it? And let's be glad that morality evolves. That's
why believers in the ancient god Yahweh (like Pearse) no longer go
around killing those with whom they disagree.

> When times change, atheism changes.

Wrong!! When times change, Christianity changes. Atheism is simply the
unbelief in God and gods. When times change, that doesn't change.

> Loading this with 19th century ideas of progress is amusing, but
> fallacious.

So how did Roger demonstrate that fallaciousness? He did it with
speculation about what an atheist "may" (sic) think about slavery in
2100. I am providing facts; Roger is presenting a wish list and using
bluster to distract from his deficiency.

>> 3. Many of the values that Christians claim as being of Christian
>> origin, have actually been hijacked.

Roger ignored the following section. It showed, beyond any doubt, that
permission for polygamy comes straight from the Bible.

>> MONOGAMY:

>> Ask a Christian for an example of a morality that Christianity has
>> provided and he will very likely cite monogamy (having one wife).

>> http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/788/eg8.htm

>>~ An authoritative work, The Law of Monogamy in Christianity,
>>~ written by Pope Shenouda III in 1958, stresses that monogamy is
>>~ the essence of Christian marriage -- a canon law derived from the
>>~ Holy Bible and upheld within church law, whether received from the
>>~ Apostles or from ecumenical and regional synods.

>> But this is terribly false. Monogamy is _not_ taught in the Bible.
>> On the contrary, polygamy is clearly permitted for the Bible's
>> leading figures. Unlike adultery, polygamy is never condemned. In
>> the Bible, God would see adulterers killed. Though several examples
>> are available, I'll provide just three to show that polygamy was
>> biblically acceptable. The Bible tells us that he was on the right
>> side of the Lord (1 Kings 15:5). Being called 'Son of David' even
>> lent Jesus importance. King David had at least seven wives! In the
>> parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) Jesus portrays himself
>> as the groom marrying five of the virgins. There is nothing in
>> there to indicate a problem with the polygamous relationship in
>> which Jesus portrays himself. Only two men of the Exodus generation
>> were allowed to enter the Promised Land (not even Moses made the
>> grade). One of the two was Caleb, who had two concubines (1
>> Chronicles 2:46-48). Many more examples of biblical polygamy can be
>> found here:

>> http://www.musicitem.com/article4.htm

>> Apologists will try to turn black into white and will actually try
>> to have the Bible admonishing polygamy and promoting monogamy. But
>> this can only be done by denying what is obviously there and
>> manufacturing what isn't there, and doing so many times over . That
>> polygamy is accepted in the Bible is unequivocal to all but the
>> most wishful and convoluted readings. That the Christians obtained
>> monogamy from the Greco-Roman social mores and not from the Bible
>> is testified by St. Augustine:

>>~ "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is
>>~ no longer allowed to take another wife." [From Augustine's, "The
>>~ Good of Marriage", circa 400 AD.]

> This passage of Augustine does not seem to say that "Christians
> obtained monogamy from the Greco-Roman social mores and not from the
> Bible".

You are in denial, Mr. Pearse. It's rather straightforward. Augustine
is saying that times have changed and that from now on, one is to live
according to the Roman custom and only take one wife. Also his words,
"[I]t is *no longer allowed* to take another wife", unequivocally
indicate that polygamy was previously permitted with Christianity.

http://www.righteouswarriors.com/questions/q30.html

~ We know that early Christians, as well as non-Christian Jews,
~ continued taking multiple wives for several centuries after Messiah,
~ based on the writings of Josephus in the first century, of Justin
~ Martyr in the second century, and even a Roman law passed in 212 AD
~ to "tolerate" Jewish polygyny. So let's start by looking at what St.
~ Augustine wrote regarding polygyny in The Good of Marriage. In
~ chapter 15, he said that although it "was lawful among the ancient
~ fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily
~ pronounce.

~ "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no
~ longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one
~ wife living" - St. Augustine (from "A Selected Library of Nicene and
~ Post-Nicine Fathers of the Christian Church", Philip Schaff, Vol
~ III, pg. 428)

~ These quotes make it quite clear that Roman custom, not Scripture,
~ was the reason polygyny was "made" a sin.

But more importantly, and what I showed, is that the polygamy comes
straight from the Bible. Roger ignored that section entirely. Here is
part of it:

`` [P]olygamy is clearly permitted for the Bible's leading figures.
`` Unlike adultery, polygamy is never condemned. In the Bible, God
`` would see adulterers killed. Though several examples are available,
`` I'll provide just three to show that polygamy was biblically
`` acceptable. The Bible tells us that he was on the right side of the
`` Lord (1 Kings 15:5). Being called 'Son of David' even lent Jesus
`` importance. King David had at least seven wives! In the parable of
`` the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) Jesus portrays himself as the
`` groom marrying five of the virgins. There is nothing in there to
`` indicate a problem with the polygamous relationship in which Jesus
`` portrays himself. [Sean]

Just by itself, that shows that Christianity does not have an absolute
set of values as Roger claims above. With Augustine's decree,
Christianity adopted societal values, while rejecting biblical values.
This is be no means an aberration. Even the Christian realises, at
some level, that the Bible is on the nose and that too many of its
values have no place in today's society.

> I note the vagueness of the reference, and infer that this is being
> copied from some other source, unstated.

Is that a roundabout way of implying that it's bogus and that
Augustine never made the statement about polygamy? If that's the
charge, I'll leave the onus with Mr. Pearse. Here is another
reference:

~ "A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicine Fathers of the
~ Christian Church", Philip Schaff, Vol III, pg. 428)

>> DO UNTO OTHERS (Luke 6:31):

>> Here is another teaching that is cited by Christians as their own:

>>~ “Doing Unto Others”. There is real virtue in neither poverty nor
>>~ wealth. The issue here goes to the very foundation of Christian
>>~ ethics—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—

>> But this principle had been voiced independently in many
>> philosophies prior to Christianity. The following is take from page
>> 60 of, "This Religion Business" by Victor James:

>> Confucianism: (6th century B.C.): "What you don't want done to
>> yourself, don't do to others".

>> Buddhism (5th century BC): "Hurt not others with that which pains
>> thyself".

>> Janism (5th century B.C.): "[We] should refrain from inflicting
>> upon others such injury as would appear undesirable if inflicted
>> upon ourselves".

>> Zoroastrianism (5th century B.C.): "Do not unto others all that
>> which is not well for oneself."

>> Plato (4th century B.C.): "May I do to others as I would they
>> should do unto me."

>> Hinduism (3rd century B.C.): "Do naught to others which, if done to
>> thee would cause pain."

>> Judaism (1st century B.C.): "What is hurtful to yourself, don't do
>> on your fellow man."

>> Christianity (1st century A.D.): "Whatsoever ye would that man
>> should do to you, do ye even so to them."

>> TEN COMMANDMENTS:

>> Another exhibit that one can expect an apologist to present, in
>> showing what Christianity has provided, is the Decalogue (Ten
>> Commandments). But remove the purely religious laws for regulating
>> superstition, like worshipping the one God (the first commandment)
>> and you are left mainly with laws that would have existed in any
>> ordered society. Commandments such as, "Thou shalt not steal" and
>> thou "shalt not murder" would have been necessary for any
>> civilisation. Actually the first four Judeo/Christian commandments
>> are worship regulations and the next five are simply universal
>> mores that are required for a society to function, though the last
>> 'covet' one seems to be rendered redundant by the seventh and
>> eighth commandments.

>> The Decalogue version in Exodus 34 has major differences. Its last
>> commandment, for instance, instead of being, "Thou shall not covet"
>> is, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." Now there's
>> a true theistic value for you! Here are the two lists side by side:

>>~ WHAT Ten Commandments?!:

>> http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/What10.htm

>> Judaism was sandwiched time-wise and geography-wise between more
>> advanced civilisations. They can't even take credit for the idea of
>> having written laws for a functional civilisation. They got that
>> idea from their captors, the Babylonians:

>> http://home.san.rr.com/westwiz/Sci_Religion/TenCommandments3.htm

>> L. W. Perry:

>>~ Hammurabi codified the laws and about 1700 BC set them in stone. A
>>~ stone tablet with a copy of these laws survives today. The
>>~ Babylonians believed that their [laws] were given to them on a
>>~ stone tablet by their god - Shamash.

>> Suitably impressed, the Hebrews wrote down their own set of laws
>> and similarly said that they were from God.

> Christians believe in absolute morality. Atheists do not (although
> Sean made an appeal to them earlier, when he referred to "more
> moral"). But the idea that only Christians are moral is a curious
> one.

That's invalid logic, comparisons don't require absolutes. For
example, given the same range, the sound of gun discharging will
readily be recognised as being louder than the sound of a popping
cork, without any referencing to an absolute loudness standard. Roger
knows it's wrong to kill witches, unbelievers and people who work on
Saturday. Does he need his 'absolute' standard to tell him that? No he
does not. In fact, his absolute standard, his Bible, tells him killing
these people is the right thing to do.

> Again, what has any of this to do with atheism?

That's like asking what a boat has to do with water. Without theism,
there would be no point in atheism. Without the theist claiming
Christian/absolute values, there would be no point defending the
alternative. Roger still assumes that he can dictate the subject and
the onus. He is yet to explain why I am any more obliged to justify
atheist values than he is to justify Christian/theistic values. He is
also yet to explain how one is supposed to show that atheism does not
entail inferior values (to his Christianity) without being able to do
comparisons with Christianity. Recall too that Mr. Pearse has now
stated what Jani and I inferred, that while claiming that atheism is
limited to societal values, Roger holds that Christianity has absolute
values. Therefore, examining Christianity to see if atheism really has
something less, is quite pertinent. The above was point 3. In the
index, I wrote for point 3:

`` 3. Many of the values that Christians would identify as being
`` theirs, have been hijacked. [Sean]

In expounding above, I showed (with examples) that values that have
been strongly identified as being Christian and absolute, have really
just been values that Christianity has copied from its host societies
and Christianity has claimed them as being their own.

>> 4. Most biblical values, that modern society rejects, need to be
>> rejected because they are vastly inferior.

> "Inferior" measured against which yardstick? An absolute morality?
> Or the values of those who set the media agenda of 2009?

Absolute values aren't required. Most biblical values are inferior
when considered against societal values, personal values,
philosophical values and even today's Christian values. That is why
Christianity has had to reject them.

>> Hating your family for Jesus is no longer acceptable. Blood
>> sacrifices and burnt offerings are no longer acceptable. Polygamy
>> is no longer acceptable. Not worrying about the future ("Consider
>> the lilies" [Mat 6:28-31]) is now rightfully considered
>> irresponsible. Women having to remain silent is no longer
>> acceptable. It is not acceptable to refer to those of a different
>> faith or nationality, as "dogs", as did Jesus regarding the gentile
>> child when the mother asked Jesus for help (Mat 15:22-27). Biblical
>> rationalisations for natural occurrences are no longer acceptable.
>> For instance, we know enough about medicines to know that illness
>> isn't caused by demon possession and we know that natural causes
>> are responsible for natural disasters, not God's impetuous wrath
>> over some trivial infraction. Some of the Judaeo-Christian values
>> are not only unacceptable in today's society, they rank as
>> positively evil, or evil and insane. Examples are: slavery, the
>> killing of 'witches', killing someone for collecting firewood on
>> the Sabbath, killing someone for approaching an altar, killing
>> people for adultery (Duet 22:13-21), killing brides found not to be
>> virgins, annihilating entire races (but keeping the virgins!),
>> smashing babies' (the enemy's) heads on rocks (Psalm 137) and the
>> killing of God unbelievers - which I will quote:

>> Deut 7:16 "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy
>> God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them:
>> neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto
>> thee."

>> These absurdities and atrocities are all God-sanctioned in the
>> Bible and these are just a few. Any decent person is compelled to
>> reject such values as vile and insane and replace them with more
>> philosophically advanced ones, his own and/or someone else's. That
>> this compulsion exists is why the biblical/Christian values have
>> been rejected by atheists and Christians alike. To appeal to the
>> Bible for absolute values is to appeal to backwardness and
>> ignorance.

> These three paragraphs of standard atheist ranting are mainly
> irrelevant.

They are only irrelevant to one who wants to condemn atheists' values
while putting his head in the sand over his own supposedly absolute
values. The incomplete list I gave was part of _your_ 'absolute'
values set, Roger. I must say I find it remarkable that anyone could
essentially defend, by dismissing as 'irrelevant', values like slavery
and the killing of 'witches', Sabbath workers, altar transgressors,
adulterers, unbelievers, heathen races and the enemies' babies. They
are only a few of the God sanctioned atrocities. Even if my only
guidelines were modern societal values, I would take them any day over
such barbarity.

> But surely they do, once again, prove my point? "Societal values" is
> the absolute.

Where did you get that? The sick values I listed were from the Bible,
the supposed 'absolute' value set. You and your fellow apologists wear
that burden, not western society per se. If you mean that society
pronounces such values as unacceptable, is that to say that you don't?
I would really like an answer to that; do you find those biblical
values acceptable or not?

> To conform to it is to be "decent". Of course in a depraved society,
> such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, the same logic works any
> evil.

Ultimately it didn't work as both collapsed. If we applied you
'absolute' biblical values, evil of that kind would continue. The
biblical God and his people were as brutal and evil as any ugly
historical example you can mention. The difference between me (and
presumably other atheists) and Christian apologists, is that I don't
need to try to defend monstrous ancient/primitive values and vaguely
hold them up as a standard to which one should aspire. I recognise
them for what they are and reject them without mincing words.

>> Now, Jani, for the last part of your inference of Mr. Pearse's
>> challenge:

>>~ . . . atheists can only draw on societal values, which are
>>~ flexible, inconsistent, and may contradict themselves from one era
>>~ culture to the next. [Jani]

>> 5. Societal trends are part of nature, evolution and generally
>> represent advancement.

>> The process of genetic evolution will include natural altruism
>> because it is something beneficial to a species. This is probably
>> the most important value and it it isn't as arbitrary to a society
>> as Mr. Pearse's challenge would wishfully suggest. Even lower
>> animals display it regularly.

> Assertions of this nature seem quite 19th century.

Huh? Where did you dig that up? Evolutionary theory is still the
current theory and that fact that animals display cooperation is
obvious. If that weren't so, a mother wouldn't even feed her young;
she would only be interested in feeding herself. We have wild
kookaburras here and we often see different adults feeding other
birds' babies. Choughs - we also get those - are also birds that will
feed the babies of others. Altruism is hardwired and is a product of
evolution:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

~ Biological Altruism

~ In the 1960s and 1970s a rival theory emerged: kin selection or
~ ‘inclusive fitness’ theory, due originally to Hamilton (1964). This
~ theory, discussed in detail below, apparently showed how altruistic
~ behaviour could evolve without the need for group-level selection,
~ and quickly gained prominence among biologists interested in the
~ evolution of social behaviour; the empirical success of kin
~ selection theory contributed to the demise of the group selection
~ concept. However, the precise relation between kin and group
~ selection is a source of ongoing controversy.

> But again, what is the argument? That we should do whatever benefits
> a species, or a society?

It's in keeping with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you". That is something that has been exposed across civilised
cultures well before the less civilised subculture, Christianity,
began.

> Again, societal values appear, governing the very terms in which
> this is expressed. And if we read an atheist of 2 centuries ago, we
> would find a different set. And if we could read an atheist of 2
> centuries hence, we would find a different set.

Sure there will be differences, but let's see Mr. Pearse provide more
than the vaguest hand waving to show that the values of atheists over
time will change more than the values of Christians. I have shown in
several places how dramatically Christianity has changed over time,
not only in practices but also in doctrine. Pearse tried to put the
focus onto atheists with regard slavery, making out that an atheist
would have supported it in the 19th century and might again support it
in 2100. He used unsupported assertion for the first part and simply a
poorly disguised wish for the second. I showed, that when Christianity
in the US finally took the position that slavery was morally wrong,
prominent atheists had already been there for many years - certainly
during and before the 19th century.

> To appeal to "progress" as a justification of change is to beg the
> question. In my time, at least, progress has ceased.

If one looks at it long-term there is no question that there has been
overall progress. Just comparing today's society to the barbaric
attitudes, described in the OT, is sufficient to demonstrate that. We
are also more morally and ethically advanced than the Greco-Roman
culture that positively influenced Christianity.

http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE99/Pollock99.html

~ ETHICS, MORALITY, AND CIVILIZATION

~ Thus, he [Carl Jung] predicated a progressive morality. I suggest
~ that rather than a linear, relativistic, horizontal model of ethics
~ or morality, we adopt a non-linear, progressive, vertical model.

When we talk about short-term, where people see changes within their
own time, it becomes more subjective. One area of moral/ethical
improvement to come to mind, is worker safety. There was much less of
that in my younger days and stories of hazardous unacceptable tasks
from parents' time, displayed what now seems like blatant disregard
for the welfare of workers. I think that these days we show more care
in looking after the sick and disabled. I think most western women
wouldn't want to return to the attitudes from half a century ago.
Recently a black man has been made head of government in the US. So
that has gone from enslavement, to emancipation, to acceptance, to
presidency. Many would not see the last fifty years of the last two as
progress, but like I said, the shorter the period, the more subjective
it becomes. No doubt, one could also show negative trends, but
overall, most would have to agree, that over a very long period
(centuries or millennia), our attitudes/values have improved.

>> We can also go back in time and consider Homo erectus, whose
>> cranial capacity was half that of modern man. One could be fairly
>> certain, even if just intuitively, that they (and even later cave
>> dwellers) would not provide suitable guidelines for living in
>> today's societies. But there isn't only biological evolution to be
>> considered. Humans are more literate, educated and knowledgeable
>> today, certainly more than they were in Old Testament times. This
>> provides modern societies with an obvious advantage over the
>> primitive ones in making judgements. Also keep in mind, that in Old
>> Testament times, free thought was restricted and people were more
>> likely to be obedient followers.

> Note the quantity of speculation in this. But in making it, again
> the appeal to conformity appears.

Saying that today we are more educated and literate people of the OT,
is speculation? What planet is Pearse from? Books didn't even exist in
B.C. There was no alphabet before 1200 B.C. Writing was not done by
the ordinary people but by scribes. There was no formal education and
what education there was, did not include women.

http://www.missionarlington.org/d/LOC-02-32-June2.pdf

~ Later in 1200 B.C., the alphabet was invented. However, not many
~ people knew how to read or write so they continued to tell and
~ retell stories of what God had done. Some people began to go to
~ school and learn how to read and write. When they put God’s words
~ into print they were called “scribes” or secretaries. Paper was not
~ invented at that time, so they wrote on plant leaves or animal
~ skins.

Today even a child understands, that things that used to be explained
by superstition, can be explained by science. Of course we are better
educated! Once again I submit that when Christians appeal to the OT
for values, they not only appeal to injustice, they appeal to
ignorance.

>> But there is still more to consider. Richard Dawkins coined the
>> term 'memes'. Memes are ideas to ideas and are to society the way
>> genes are to biology - except that memes are abstractions:

>> http://www.zinebook.com/resource/memes.html

>>~ Memes can be wrong or right, they can be helpful or harmful. In
>>~ the main memes are probably more beneficial than harmful.

>> Just as genetic evolution filters the unwanted biological
>> attributes, memetic (or societal) evolution will eventually filter
>> out ideas that aren't beneficial to societies.

>> http://www.mwillett.org/Memes/mememission1.htm

>>~ Memes must fight one another to survive in the nervous systems of
>>~ human beings, because brain resources are limited. All people
>>~ filter out ideas they consider useless, and they retain ideas that
>>~ they consider beneficial in some way.

> Note the irrelevance of all this to the point at issue, except to
> the degree that it amounts to an argument for conformity.

Here Pearse seems to be objecting to conformity per se. But isn't
Christianity all about conformity? Here are some samples for DNA
analysis:

http://stlts.org/index.php/Background/Student-Life.html

~ Every student’s conduct is expected to conform to Christian values
~ and standards.

http://groups.yahoo.com/phrase/river-of-life-church

~ Postings that do not conform to Christian values will not be
~ broadcasted

http://www.biblestudies-online.com/Others/PhilofCE.html

~ God’s values for man are centered in His desire for man to conform
~ to the image that man has.

So which is it, Mr. Pearse? Is conformity wonderful or dreadful?

>> I will submit that very same memetic evolution that has modelled
>> society, has simultaneously remodelled Christianity and will
>> suggest (again) that that is why Christianity has changed so
>> dramatically. But what this means is that the original Christian
>> model is a failure and as such is another religion that memetic
>> evolution has, for all but remnants and appearances, filtered out.
>> The memetics of the new society might be flawed, but our society
>> has already determined conclusively that certain religions,
>> including true (1st century variety) Judeo-Christianity, are wrong.
>> So at worst, the atheist with only modern societal values is
>> backing a possible winner rather than a sure loser.

> This appears to be an acknowledgement that an atheist of today lives
> by the values of 2009. I remember those values being invented,
> mostly by people of few morals and who regarded rules as for others.

It would seem that Roger can remember back a very long time. Many of
the values of western society of today, were invented back in the
ancient Greco-Roman culture and are used because they still hold good
today.

>> 6. Atheists don't simply hold values that are convenient to the
>> society into which they are born.

>> Mr. Pearse would seem to think that there are only two sources for
>> values, societal and religious, but why does he assume that?

>> http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/12916.html

>>~ Some sources of values include personal values, societal values,
>>~ religious values, and organizational values.

>> So what about personal values? Does Mr. Pearse think that there is
>> no such thing as _personal_ values? Does he hold none? Assuming he
>> does, on what basis does he assume that atheists wouldn't also hold
>> personal values? An atheist could also belong to one of many
>> organisations and this will have an effect on his/her values. For
>> example, he/she may belong to a political party, may be a member of
>> the Sceptics Society or may be a humanist. An atheist can even
>> belong to a church. In fact, I suspect that many do. However,
>> atheists (especially avowed) generally represent the independent
>> free thought end of town, so they are the least likely to
>> unthinkingly follow and are the most likely to invoke their own
>> personal opinions/values:

>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html

>>~ I think it will come as no surprise to anyone if I point out to
>>~ you that most Christians, if they were raised in a Moslem culture,
>>~ would be Moslems, not Christians. Most Moslems, if they were
>>~ raised in a Christian culture, would be Christians, not Moslems.
>>~ And because atheism, at least in American culture, represents an
>>~ unorthodox position, this accounts for why by and large atheists
>>~ are independent thinkers. To become an atheist in this culture you
>>~ have to have at least enough independence to question the
>>~ prevailing wisdom concerning religion, because you are inundated
>>~ with this in school, by your parents, by your culture, and
>>~ certainly by the mass media. [George H. Smith]

>> Atheists. by their very nature, will have more independent opinions
>> than most. If Mr. Pearse wants to criticise people who
>> philosophically go with the flow of the environment in which they
>> find themselves born, he should be criticising the likes of true
>> Christians and Muslims, not atheists. He has it completely upside
>> down and back to front.

> This consists of a series of assertions, most irrelevant to the
> point he claims to be addressing, because they change the point at
> issue. The statement is that atheists hold to societal values.

They do, to a very large degree, hold to societal values. But so what?
Christians do the same.

> More accurately, in any society, the value-mix characteristic of
> that period is a mish-mash. It is the mix that is characteristic.
> Atheists adopt some subset of this mix.

So what? Christians also adopt societal values. The only way for Roger
to show that atheists have some disadvantage is to submit and discuss
the advantage the Christians (or theists) supposedly enjoy. He needs
to do that specifically, not vaguely, otherwise the argument is
meaningless.

> The idea that atheists have independent opinions can be rebutted by
> any examination of the values advanced by atheists.

Perhaps Mr. Pearse isn't talking about earth. As I have already
exhibited (by quoting Smith), people brought up in Christian
environments tend to be Christians, while people brought up in Islamic
states will almost always be Muslims. Religious folk will usually
simply adopt the religions of their countries, families and others
within their sphere. Just looking at the religious/geographical
demographics will abundantly illustrate that. To deny it would be
stupidity. Such conformity is usually not the case with atheists. Most
have gone against the grain, some to great peril. The link I provided
directs you to where many atheists have undergone a lot of rejection
by family and friends when they confessed that they no longer
believed. Atheists tend not to belong to atheist organisations;
Christians and Muslims nearly always belong to their respective
organisations. By saying it is the religious who think for themselves,
not the atheists, Mr. Pearse's apologetics would have us seeing black
as white and white as black. He is being ridiculous and transparently
so.

> I believe that in the 70's people who claimed to be rebelling did so
> by all going out and wearing blue jeans. The irony, it seems,
> escaped them.

Blue jeans? Irony? Mr Pearse, atheists don't take off their unbelief
(like blue jeans) when the get home. It goes wherever that they go and
nearly always lasts for the rest of their lives. It isn't some
adolescent phase, as you would naively have it. If you wish to argue
that it is simply rebellion, and not sincere (and often unsettling)
unbelief, then the onus is on you to put up or shut up. I will again
provide this link to a plethora of ex-Christian testimonies:

http://www.ex-christian.net/lofiversion/index.php/f5.html

What comes clearly across, is that these people haven't been doubting
or unbelieving to be cool. Quite the opposite; they have usually felt
alone and are relieved to find that there are others like them. This
is a very different picture to the one that Mr. Pearse would paint
with his profoundly naive and wishful blue jeans analogy.

>> 7. Arguing against atheism, on the basis of values, is a red
>> herring.

>> Whether or not Albert Einstein was a nice person is irrelevant to
>> the veracity of E=mc^2.

> Conceivably the same might apply to whether Roger Pearse is a nice
> person, or whether Christians are nice people.

Hang on. That clashes with Christian instruction from Jesus:

~ Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
~ into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [Mat
~ 7:19-20]

In other words, if the fruits of Christianity are bad (its
constituents), one must suspect the tree. You really must try to at
least remember your Christian values, Roger, just for old times'
sake.

>> In similitude, the only thing that will make atheism wrong is the
>> existence of God or one of his competitors (e.g. Zeus or the
>> Rainbow Serpent). Atheists' morality or values are merely a
>> distraction, cynically employed by apologists to take the focus off
>> Christianity's untenability.

> This is a version of a standard argument. Atheism is about not
> believing in gods,

Ah, Pearse does know it, but like other apologists, he simply finds it
convenient to forget it.

> [Atheism is about not believing in gods,] it goes, so atheists don't
> have to justify their beliefs. But discussing whether the
> consequences of atheism, the values and ideas that go with it, are
> correct is valid by itself. We could all be agnostics, after all.

Pearse appears to be saying, that even if there is no God, not
believing in God might be still necessitate invalidity! No, Roger
can't turn, not believing what isn't true, into invalidity. But there
is further excruciation in Roger's thinking. If there is no God then
his gold standard doesn't exist either, making his Christian values
also 'invalid', making it illogical just to point at atheists' values
in a godless universe. It would be like arguing, that in a godless
universe, left-handed people would only have societal values. No
matter how you cut it, to make any sense at all, Pearse's values
argument needs to have God's existence as a premise before he can
start using it to criticise atheism.

>> What is more, Mr. Pearse's logic is circular. For him to have any
>> hope of claiming an absolute set of values to hold over atheism,
>> his God needs to exist or have existed.

> A little knowledge of Plato or Cicero tells us different. Absolute
> morality is not connected to religion.

So where's the problem for atheism again?

>> But that is to assume, as a premise, his conclusion in attacking
>> atheism. He first needs to show the atheist that his absolute God
>> does exist. But once he has done that, there would be no need to
>> bother arguing about values.

> This is a demand that atheism should not be criticised on the
> grounds that I have done.

It isn't rocket science. The alternative to the values that you
criticise, is supposed to be 'absolute' values/morality. If, in
accordance with the atheists' position, there is a no God, then
Christians don't have special absolute values and don't actually have
any alternative. If there is no God, it means we all get our values
form the same kind of sources. The major difference then is, that
Christians are deluding themselves. For there to be absolute value for
the theist, but not the atheist, a transcendental source must exist
for the theist. Therefore, Roger's challenge is necessarily based on
the assumption that God exists. But of course, the atheist can't
accept such a premise because he doesn't believe in God. If Roger can
establish that the atheist has it wrong and that God exists, then he
has his premise, but once he has that, arguing for Christian superior
values (and therefore theism) becomes quite redundant.

> I see no reason not to raise the issue, since it affects atheists
> every day of their lives, and their inability to address it must be
> deleterious.

No, not living by the Bible's values is _not_ deleterious, Roger,
quite the contrary. It's _actually_ living by the use-by-date-expired
Bible that would be deleterious, a disaster in fact. That is why you
don't live by its values either. What affects atheists lives everyday,
are almost certainly the sort of things that affect Christians lives
just as regularly. The sky doesn't fall in when you become an atheist.

> If atheists want to live in conformity to what some newspaper
> proprietor chooses to allow in his newspaper, that is their right.

And? It is as much Roger Pearse's right to live in conformity to some
newspaper, if he wants to. I for one write to newspapers when I
disagree with what they say. Evidence of such appears in newsprint.
Unfortunately I am unable to reciprocate further by saying, that if a
Christian wants to live in conformity with a dubious and dark ancient
text, then he can. He can't; it wouldn't be tolerated.

> I am not concerned with that! What I do ask, is that they are aware
> of what they have chosen to do. As this very long post indicates,
> they are not.

What have I chosen to do? I don't believe in Roger's God, the end.
Even if I were promised fortune for believing in his God tomorrow, I
wouldn't be able to do it any more than I would be able to start
believing in the tooth fairy. All I could do is pretend, which is
probably what many do and what many Christians, like Roger, would
prefer me to do.

>> 8. Atheists can arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that
>> of average society and/or Christianity.

>> Aside from the faulty logic of arguing against atheism on the basis
>> of values, it employs a questionable innuendo. There is evidence
>> that atheists have higher standards than average. Let's look at
>> Christians versus atheists in prison:

>> Atheists Versus Theists in Prison:

>> http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/prison.htm

>>~ Catholic 29267 39.164% Protestant 26162 35.008% . . Atheist 156
>>~ 0.209% Hindu 119 0.159%

>> Now let's compare atheists versus Christians in divorce rates:

>> http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

>>~ The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of
>>~ nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in
>>~ contrast to 25 percent for the general population.
>>~ Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible
>>~ churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the
>>~ highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again
>>~ Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more
>>~ distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate
>>~ of divorce.

> Erm, and where do atheists get the moral value that it is better not
> to be in prison, divorced, etc?

I can use societal values, my own values or even your Christian values
to determine that loyalty in a marriage and being lawful (and keeping
out of prison), are desirable. It really must irk Pearse that atheists
come off looking better in these regards. So what are _your_ views on
marriage, Roger, or are you unqualified to answer?

> Most of this is irrelevant to *atheism*?

Intrinsically, for atheism, that is quite so. However in a discussion
about atheists' values versus the alternative, the fact that atheists
regularly display more desirable values, _is_ quite relevant. A
dismissive wave of the hand, from Roger, won't remove that fact.

>> 9. Mr. Pearse hasn't presented a logical criticism of societal
>> values.

>> Re-quoting Pearse:

>>~ Instead ask them [atheists] to define [sic] why they just live in
>>~ some convenient conformity to the societal values of the time in
>>~ which they happened to be born.

>> One can parody that with:

>>~ Instead ask them [Christians] to define why they just live in some
>>~ convenient conformity to the societal [laws] of the time in which
>>~ they happened to be born.

>> Mr. Pearse has to clearly nominate the faults and compare them to
>> his supposed Christian values. The fact that models have been
>> changing doesn't mean that one should want the earliest model.
>> Aircraft design has been changing for over a century. Would Mr.
>> Pearse suggest that we return to the Wright Brothers' Flyer?
>> Similarly, saying societal values are 'convenient' doesn't
>> necessarily constitute a valid criticism. I find it ultimately
>> convenient that in driving in Australia, we all keep to the left -
>> or most of us do. I would not like to see that convenient rule
>> discarded. In any case, atheism is not a convenient position,
>> especially if the atheist is living in a strongly Christian
>> country. In the past it was even more inconvenient to be an avowed
>> atheist; it could lead to a short life. If one goes to the
>> ex-Christian site and reads the stories of those who have left
>> Christianity, one will note how normal it is for the ex-Christians,
>> following their conversion, to have upset in their lives, mainly to
>> do with family and friends turning from them. I recommend one read
>> some of the testimonies here to find out how 'convenient' the
>> ex-Christians have discovered it to be:

>> http://www.ex-christian.net/lofiversion/index.php/f5.html

>> Clearly atheists who are prepared to go through this, aren't doing
>> it with the idea of placating family and society. They are doing it
>> out of a sense of right; they can simply pretend no longer.

> Unfortunately it is not made clear, in all this, just why I have to
> define atheists values for them.

You don't have to do it at all and it one would request that you
don't. You seem to be determinedly ignorant about what atheism is. If
not even an atheist can speak on behalf of other atheists, beyond the
fact that they don't believe, what makes you think you can?

> At the moment I am having difficulty getting them to even
> acknowledge their position.

Atheists' position: We don't believe in God or gods. It's that simple.
Beyond that, one isn't in a position to speak on behalf of other
atheists. Mr. Pearse might as well ask a non stamp collector to
'define' the value system of not collecting stamps.

>> Just one more item.

>> 10. To be consistent, Pearse's charges must logically also apply to
>> agnostics.

>> Mr. Pearse's charges are exclusively laid against atheists, but it
>> is hard to see how they would not apply to agnostics as well. This
>> would include the agnostic, Peter, with whom I was conversing when
>> Mr. Pearse first entered and it would presumably include you too.
>> Agnostics also lack belief in God and his (supposedly) Bible and
>> can't use it as an absolute authority on values. So why does Mr.
>> Pearse spare such a large group from his focus and accusations? I
>> suggest it is because he passionately hates atheists, seeing them
>> as the most vocal and damaging, and wants to marginalise and
>> silence them. I have also noted of late, a strange tendency for
>> Christian apologists to count agnostics as being on their side.

> As I indicated, agnostics also live by societal values. Most of
> those people who attack me online turn out to be atheists, repeating
> slogans.

More Pearse projection, or is it just auto-whine?

> I try to get them [atheists] to think for themselves.

It is ironic, that Peter whom you rightfully thanked for his support
in this exchange, later, in anger over Rowland supposedly not being a
proper Christian minister, made this statement to Mark:

~ People who want to think for themselves have no business being
~ christians. [blofelds_cat]

Do find that as amusing as I do, Mr. Pearse?

> It's usually vain, tho.

Perhaps that's because you are a 'proper' Christian. "Physician, heal
thyself" (Luke 4:23).

>> So Jani, if you've made it to here, thanks. I'd like your opinion
>> on whether or not I have dodged Mr. Pearse's challenge.

> I think that you have endorsed my point. You live by the societal
> values of the country and time in which you happened to be born. You
> might have said so, surely, in rather less than 600 lines. I don't
> quite see why you deny that nearly all atheists do so the same.

I have said so, several times. I have also said that you too, live by
societal values. I have also said that I also live by personal values,
philosophical values and hardwired genetic values. I have said that,
however, unlike you, I am not burdened with trying to rationalise
immoral, diabolical and useless biblical values, the ones that
Christians have to discard anyway.

> I haven't snipped a line of this,

Untrue, but still, it was refreshingly close to the truth. You snipped
the following from the second sentence on:

`` Christians no longer espouse slavery and they no longer kill
`` witches. They no longer ban the eating of pork and they no longer
`` insist on circumcision and the silence of women in church. They are
`` no longer polygamists. They no longer worship in synagogues. They
`` no longer celebrate (value) the Passover. Their holy day of worship
`` is no longer the Sabbath (Saturday). These are just a few examples.
`` [Sean]

> stuffed full of irrelevance as it is. Who can deny that it would be
> far easier to read if I had?

Snip-edit-diatribe-run is always going to be easier to read, but who
but a disturbed dimwit would want to? The vote has already been cast,
Roger, and it hasn't favoured you.

Sean McHugh

[Sean McHugh]

[panam...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> %%
>
> Roger Pearse wrote:

snip, but only for bandwidth...

Hear, hear!

Roger behaves the same way over here in alt.atheism (although after
having had his apologia handed back to him on multiple occasions, he
rarlely visits us anymore). I'm glad to see that someone has finally
called him to task for it.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!

[Sean McHugh]

Sean McHugh wrote:
>
> %%
>
> Roger Pearse wrote:

<snip>

Apologies for this long post appearing twice (after a long delay). All
indications (including various messages) were that neither attempt had
been successful.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:12:53 +1100, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au>
wrote:

>
>Sean McHugh wrote:
>>
>> %%
>>
>> Roger Pearse wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>Apologies for this long post appearing twice (after a long delay). All
>indications (including various messages) were that neither attempt had
>been successful.

No problem.

It was a 100% accurate response.

He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.

>Best Regards,
>
>Sean McHugh

--

Agent 5 users can filter 90% of Usenet spam using
message-id: {google}

[Sean McHugh]

panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> > %%
> >
> > Roger Pearse wrote:
>
> snip, but only for bandwidth...
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> Roger behaves the same way over here in alt.atheism (although after
> having had his apologia handed back to him on multiple occasions, he
> rarlely visits us anymore). I'm glad to see that someone has finally
> called him to task for it.

Thank you very much for that. I invited him to a moderated debate on
the subject, actually posting the challenge in the forum. This was to
be a formal debate where abuse would not be tolerated. Not only did he
decline (which wasn't surprising), in the newsgroup he actually framed
his refusal as my running from him. Here is where another poster
(Jani) very politely pointed out his transparent BS:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/0b7141783971da9d

Pearse now has my allegedly undeliverable reply to his post. My offer
to formally debate him is still open.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[dolf]

Sean is hardly honest in his discussion--he needs someone to restrain
him and remind him what moderation is.

And Theo's enjoyment of abuse on religious discussion forums is no
different to some individual's predilection to child pornography--I find
both revolting.

- dolf

[Sean McHugh]

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:12:53 +1100, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sean McHugh wrote:
> >>
> >> %%
> >>
> >> Roger Pearse wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >Apologies for this long post appearing twice (after a long delay). All
> >indications (including various messages) were that neither attempt had
> >been successful.
>
> No problem.
>
> It was a 100% accurate response.

Thank you for reading it.

> He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.

Here is where one poster summed him up well:

http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33bd57f

~ One has to admire the Roger Pearse method of argument:
~
~ 1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.
~ 2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the
~ burden of proof to your opponents.
~ 3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable
~ to respond.
~ 4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave
~ with an arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a
~ punch in the nose in real life."

I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[dolf]

Just a standard categorical imperative--nice ploy, just ask that rabid
fascist dog and banshee whore Peter Bowditch from Australian Skeptics.
He takes exception to:

#1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = #10

Sean is hardly honest in his discussion--he needs someone to restrain
him and remind him what moderation is.

And Theo's enjoyment of abuse on religious discussion forums is no
different to some individual's predilection to child pornography--I find
both revolting.

- dolf
-
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/germination.html#formidea@zen:1,row:8,col:4,nous:7

[Sean McHugh]

dolf wrote:

> Just a standard categorical imperative--nice ploy, just ask that rabid
> fascist dog and banshee whore Peter Bowditch from Australian Skeptics.
> He takes exception to:
>
> #1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = #10
>
> Sean is hardly honest in his discussion--he needs someone to restrain
> him and remind him what moderation is.
>
> And Theo's enjoyment of abuse on religious discussion forums is no
> different to some individual's predilection to child pornography--I find
> both revolting.
>
> - dolf

<snip>

Hi Dolf,

Could you please not spam and not top post? It makes responding
difficult.

> Sean McHugh wrote:
> >
> > panam...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >> On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> %%
> >>>
> >>> Roger Pearse wrote:

> >> snip, but only for bandwidth...
> >>
> >> Hear, hear!
> >>
> >> Roger behaves the same way over here in alt.atheism (although after
> >> having had his apologia handed back to him on multiple occasions, he
> >> rarlely visits us anymore). I'm glad to see that someone has finally
> >> called him to task for it.
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much for that.

For any that don't know Dolf (who is backing Mr. Pearse), here is an
introduction:

SQ:
=====================================================================
Subject: Re: Cosmological Argument
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:52:27 GMT
From: dolf <. . . bo...@hotmail.com>

. . . .

And the date 16 January with the #330 sacred name element in
conjunction with the topical year appears to provide a necessary
zero point #0 to #2000 CE with respects to "'equilibrium and
balance' which is concerned with a harmony which results from
the analogy of contraries, being also related to the dead centre
#41 where as point within the circle, "the opposition of opposing
forces being equal in strength, rest and
succeeds motion'": #15 ... #34 ... #65 ... #111 ... #175 ... #260
... #369 ... #2000 Y2K

11 Sept 2001 + 'OTH Cycle (#2184 days) + #500 = 16 January 2009

Yet the 'oth cycle as 6D or #2184 days, which includes a lunar 3 x
354 + 30 = #1092 day analogy, is here shown as a measurement
associated with a certain harmonic to an event of 11 Sept 2001 + 6D
(#2184) + #500 as (2684 days) = 16 Jan 2009

My concern, to use the analogy of Jesus' arrest, trial proroguing and
crucifixion, is that many individuals who may well be Catholic--are
commenting on law and order and sexuality issues--without a proper
regard for the abhorrence with which the organisation (Roman Catholic)
are to be regarded in the political life of this country as
Commonwealth.

.JackNote: Super: #41 - Playing with Reversal/ Sameness in
Difference; I-Ching: H26 - Restraining Force; Tetra: #60 -
Accumulation, Ego: #51 - Natural Guides and Natural Virtuosity/
Nursing Virtue; I-Ching: H47 - Exhaustion; Tetra: #69 - Exhaustion,
Nuance: #6 - Superiority of the Female/ Completion of Form; I-Ching:
H25 - Innocence; Tetra: #66 - Departure

.Understanding: Male Idea: #494 has 5 Categories: #4, #10, #80, #400
= n. Gigantic; #8, #20, #30, #30, #6, #400 = A troubling, darkening;
#40, #30, #20, #4, #400 = A net or snare, a catch; #40, #40, #400,
#10, #4 = To be put to death; #3, #5, #1, #40, #5, #40, #400 = The
curb (dominion) of the mother-city;

Female Idea: #411 has 12 Categories: #1, #4, #6, #400 = Turnings
or surroundings; circumstances or causes; account; (#417); #1, #10,
#400 = Being, existence; possession; there is, there was; #1, #30,
#10, #300, #70 = n. God Saves, Elishah; #1, #200, #200, #10 = n.
Mountaineer; #1, #400, #10 = Thou; #1, #400, #10 = n. With Yah; #5,
#6, #400 = To haste; #9, #2, #400 = 10th Hebrew month (January new
moon to February new moon), wintermonth; n. Pleasantness; #40, #300,
#6, #60, #5 = A spoiling or plundering; #40, #300, #40, #1, #30 =
On the left; #70, #40, #300, #1 = n. Load or Burden; #70, #300, #10,
#1, #30 = n. Made of God;

And that they seem too ready to proffer an apology for the mother
city/state in an attempt to normalise what is repulsive and immoral.

Yet for all the good intentions at showing proper and due respect, who
can forget the great moments of Skunk and Pisswacker in which heads of
state have engaged, which seemingly undoes the solemnity of the
occasion--three most prominent examples being:
=======================================================================
EQ:

<snip>

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[Barry]

"Sean McHugh" <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4990E7ED...@exemail.com.au...

>
> dolf wrote:
>
>> Just a standard categorical imperative--nice ploy, just ask that rabid
>> fascist dog and banshee whore Peter Bowditch from Australian Skeptics.
>> He takes exception to:
>>
>> #1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = #10
>>
>> Sean is hardly honest in his discussion--he needs someone to restrain
>> him and remind him what moderation is.
>>
>> And Theo's enjoyment of abuse on religious discussion forums is no
>> different to some individual's predilection to child pornography--I find
>> both revolting.
>>
>> - dolf
>
> <snip>
>
> Hi Dolf,
>
> Could you please not spam and not top post? It makes responding
> difficult.

I was told off for responding to the Dolt.
You must know by now that the Dolt does it to be annoying as the only way
it can get attention.

If you must respond to the Dolt please trim the quotes.

[Roger Pearse]

It is nice to see an attempt at replying to my post, after over a week
of delay and several posts consisting mainly of abuse or attempts to
change the subject. It is depressing to see the quantity of low-
grade personal invective that it contains. I had hoped for a more
rational reply.

The key point that I was asserting is that atheists live by some
subset of whatever happen to be the values of the period in which they
happen to live. This Sean has conceded several times in what
follows. As such, it is rather difficult to see the point of writing
1,600+ lines to suggest that I am mistaken.

Unfortunately he also persists in asserting the opposite; that
atheists "have no values," whenever convenient. The connection
between these opposing positions is one that he does not trouble to
elucidate. This basically destroys his position.

I would suggest that the common link is convenience -- in each case he
merely says what suits him, without troubling about the
inconsistency. Some explanation would be welcome.

Whether living by a set of values which will be outdated within our
own lifetimes is a very rational thing may be debated, of course. But
my point here was merely to establish this; and this Sean has
conceded.

I'm not certain that anything else in what follows has any relevance.
It is unfortunate that Sean did not understand my point that comments
about Christianity are irrelevant to a discussion of what atheism is
and entails, any more than attacking Buddhism or the customs of the
Vikings worshipping Thor. I won't attempt to reply to each comment of
his: few of them seem very relevant to me.

On 9 Feb, 22:19, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> RogerPearsewrote:

> > These days I rarely have the time to spend in usenet; and it is, in
> > fact, difficult for me to access.
>
> Perhaps this is the traumatic event in your life that we were
> wondering about.
>
> > But I happened to see this post.
>
> Of course you did, when you did a search on your name.
>
> > Much of it seems to consist of accusations against me personally;
>
> Though this post has been a huge improvement, personal attacks have

> generally characterisedRoger'sposts in our recent exchanges. His

> accusations and intense ad hominem are apparently deemed relevant
> and appropriate by him. Objections to it get labelled as irrelevant
> and/or abuse.
>
> > [Much of it seems to consist of accusations against me personally;]
> > curious, given that I am not present.
>
> Stop exaggerating. Of course you are present.

This 'rational reply' begins with personal invective. Sean here
asserts that I was present in the thread when he posted his 600 line
diatribe against me and my views. I suggest that those interested go
and see when my first post was.

> > Much more of it consists of irrelevancies; rather than discussing

> > the position ofatheists, it talks about Christianity. Why not

> > reformed Buddhism, or the state of American politics? it would be as
> > relevant.
>
> How are to we determine if atheism leads to inferior values, if we
> aren't permitted to compare it to the alternative to which it is
> supposed to be inferior? Why am I so ready to make that comparison
> while Rogeris so reluctant?

This attempts to introduce matter not part of my comments, tho. I
have not discussed whether atheism involves inferior values; how can
we tell, until we know what they are? My purpose is solely to
determine what atheism is and involves. To this end, discussion of
Christianity is merely an irrelevance. So indeed are personal attacks
on me.

> > Is it really too much to ask that, when the value-system of atheism
> > is queried, that we discuss the value-system of atheism? And not try
> > to justify it by attacks on Christianity?
>
> For starters, there is no such thing as the 'value-system of atheism'.
> Atheism isn't a system and it has no intrinsic systems. It makes no
> sense to even talk about atheism like that. To see see ifatheists
> have a moral/ethical disadvantage, it is necessary to compare it to
> the non-atheism which would supposedly provides the advantage. How

> hard is that to understand?Pearse'smain criticism is that societal
> values change, henceatheists' values as well. But this is a senseless

> criticism if the alternative theism/Christianity/agnosticism/whatever

> similarly changes with its social environment.Pearsemight then just

> as well point at bus drivers and accuse them of having changing
> values. In addressing the alternative, I have shown clearly how
> Judeo-Christianity has changed, how it has evolved and continues to
> evolve. Along with everything else, it too has followed social change.
> Its teachings and values are anything but fixed and absolute.

If I were assessing the advantages of differing systems, we might
discuss them. I am not. When we discuss something, we must first
determine what it is. This fundamental mistake vitiates almost
everything that Sean has to say.

Note that he attributes a position which I do not state and is no part
of my argument. I would prefer to deal with my argument, not some
other argument.

Here we see the first mention of the two contradictory positions:

"there is no such thing as the 'value-system of atheism'".

> > Whether the attacks are justified or not, they are irrelevant.

>
> So, it's irrelevant to criticise Christianity but continual
> gratuitous attacks onatheistsand atheism are relevant?

This comment ignores the argument in favour of attacking me for how I
contribute to atheist fora online. It is rather curious for an
atheist to complain about his position being attacked, I would have
thought! But again, this is an irrelevance.

> > I don't really know how I can put that in simpler terms.
>
> And I don't know how much more simply I can put it. In the real world
> it's like this; you don't get to put atheism on the table, implying
> that it has an inferior value system, without having it compared to
> the value system to which it is supposedly inferior. To demand that is
> to demand deception and absurdity. The very fact that you are so
> vehemently loathed to allowing the comparison shows that you realise
> that the comparison would be to your disadvantage.

Again, here we have a demand for a difference argument to the one I
actually make. Note the assertions about what "I realise". Rational
people do not make such presumptions, I'm afraid. A refusal to be
sidetracked implies nothing about the positions we adopt on other
issues.

> > There are certain standard techniques used by dishonest posters,
> > which I naturally snip. One is to bore on at great length and
> > dubious relevance, rather than address the issue. Can anyone
> > seriously suggest I should do otherwise?
>

> They have "seriously" suggested it, Mr.Pearse, but you refuse to

> listen. They have been telling you what they think of your behaviour.

> > Another is to change the subject to "whyRogerPearseis a Bad man".

> > Again, is there any reason why I should do more than simply snip the
> > abuse and point out the irrelevance?
>
> Complaining about abuse again! It's called 'projection' andPearse
> provides a copybook case study:
>
> http://www.abess.com/glossary.html#P
>
> ~ projection: A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which
> ~ what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously
> ~ rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

Sean's familiarity with projection certainly explains his endless
accusations of abuse against myself. :-)

> > A final trick, when faced with these obvious measures to keep
> > discussion on-topic, is to complain about snipping.
>

> Just in case the reader didn't follow that, Mr.Pearseis saying that

> when he typically snips all the other person's responses, causing the
> other person to complain, that other person is employing trickery! I
> think he is serious.
> > The post also starts with a statement, attributed to me, which I did
> > not make and attempts to refute it. This is known as the strawman
> > technique, of course.
>

> Now that is not the truth, Mr.Pearse. With "a statement, attributed

> to me" you are implying that someone has falsely quoted you. Not so;
> Jani simply expressed what were clearly _her_ thoughts as to what
> your position was.

She did, and rightly indicated her uncertainty. It was Sean who
presumed it was correct and wrote 600 lines on the subject as if it
was. Unfortunately it was not, as I made clear a little later by
indicating the difference.

> As it turns out, her inference was the same as mine
> and as it turns out, we were both correct. In this post, in addition
> to saying that atheism only has convenient societal values, you are
> submitting that Christianity has _absolute_ morality to which it can
> appeal.
>

> ~ Christians believe in absolute morality.Atheistsdo not (although

> ~ Sean made an appeal to them earlier, when he referred to "more
> ~ moral"). [Pearse]
>
> Of course, referring to greater morality is not espousing absolute

> morality. Whether it is or isn't,Pearseis saying that Christians

> believe in absolute morality andatheistsgenerally do not.

Quite how this relates to my comments is unclear.

If Sean is saying that atheists do believe in absolute morality, I
would like to see whether any other atheists agree, and what evidence
might be offered. My experience is exactly the opposite.

> This "statement, attributed to me" charge is a reminder of your
> false charge that I had been editing your statements. It might have
> originally been a mistake on your part but it became a lie when you
> didn't retract it.

Note the meaningless personal attack mixed with vague accusations of
wrong-doing somewhere else.

> > Someone enquired why I consider manyatheistsare contemptible.
>

> Atheistsshould value Mr.Pearse'scontempt. By the way, the

> qualifier "many" is a new addition. Previously it was general.
> As I said, this is a nicer post.

A comment that I wish I could accord Sean's post.

> > Experience of their methods of argument and behaviour -- of the
> > kinds above -- naturally tends to bring them intocontempt.
>
> I suggest you take on board what observers (including Christian) have
> thought of your behaviour in these engagements and that you at least
> start speaking only for yourself.

Again the point is ignored in favour of an insult. The contempt in
which atheists are held is hardly a personal opinion of mine!

> >> <snip>
> >>>>>>> My Christian opponent has seemingly been arguing (hard to

> >>>>>>> tell) thatatheists_only_ have changing secular societal

> >>>>>>> (hence intrinsically ungodly) values. Which is it? Mark, can
> >>>>>>> you please retain the attributions? Don't ask me. I find the
> >>>>>>> question too abstract/difficult to grapple with. iow "Big
> >>>>>>> thoughts hurt my brain." Unnecessary. I think you will find
> >>>>>>> that very few people wish to ponder such questions. With the
> >>>>>>> opponent to whom I was alluding, _I_ still can't understand
> >>>>>>> his 'values' point.
> > [snip]
> >>> [If you mean Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an

> >>> objective, unchanging standard whereas]atheistscan only draw on

> >>> societal values, which are flexible, inconsistent, and may
> >>> contradict themselves from one era / culture to the next.
> >
> > I haven't generally adopted this position.
>
> You have implied it and in this post you have confirmed that both
> parts reflect your position.

Note that this assertion precedes my explanation of why this is not my
position. This is dull, dreary stuff, putting words in someone else's
mouth.

It's a telling point. Here we have Sean **telling me** what I think,
because he thinks I "imply" it. I have no need to imply my
statements. This is the problem with everything Sean says, and indeed
that many atheists say. It is based on convenience, not logic or
reason; for either would advise him that, just because he wishes me to
say something, that is no reason to suppose that I *have* said it.

> Once again:
>
> ~ Christians believe in absolute morality.Atheistsdo not . . .

Quote-mined out of context. How depressing.

> > I don't generally discuss Christianity, you know.
>

> How nice for you. One recalls your oft repeated sneering charge thatatheistswon't/can't discuss

> their atheism. But your reluctance to discuss Christianity is acceptable, right?

Note how this ignores the point; that I was not making statements
about Christianity, but discussing atheism, and substitutes a cheap
jeer.

We're not doing very well so far. At the moment we have quite a lot
of abuse, and no substance. We even have Sean telling us "what I
really mean". But let us continue.

> > Christians believe in absolute morality, and try to act on that
> > basis. Being human, they don't manage to live up to this. The values
> > held by Christians are always influenced by society,and sometimes
> > grossly so; but then they have periods of history such as the
> > Reformation in which they tear this up. But the point is that they
> > appeal to an objective standard. The same is true for any
> > long-established philosophical or religious system.
>
> But believing one has absolute morality and actually having a source
> of absolute morality, are two very different things. If there is no
> Christian God, then the Christian does not have absolute morality.

This argument involves several fallacies, which it would be irrelevant
to discuss here. It is unfortunate that Sean did not note the comment
I made later on that morality does not require Christianity; that the
two are different.

> So straight away, Mr.Pearse'sargument needs to assume God's existence

> as a premise in his arguments against atheism. But regardless of God's
> existence, I have abundantly demonstrated that the Christian does not
> have absolute morality and has no absolute/fixed moral/value standard
> for appeal.

Sean may suppose that his post consisted of a demonstration. It did
not. But either way this has no bearing on my comment.

> > But all this is irrelevant, to me. My query, simply, is what is the

> > alternative whichatheistsactually live by?

>
> And I told you, we, like you and other Christians, use societal values
> (including memetic evolutionary).

Here we have the second position -- that atheist values consist of
societal values, combined with an irrelevant and nonsensical assertion
about Christianity.

> We also, like you, appeal to personal values (probably to a larger degree, as explained elsewhere)
> and to philosophical values (again probably to a larger degree, as
> explained elsewhere). We also rely on empathy and altruism and that is
> hardwired through biological evolution.

Leaving aside the irrelevant assertion about me, much of these claims
are of interest and might be examined further, as they bear on the key
question.

> The fact that we aren't dragging around morally dubious biblical values, is hardly a
> disadvantage. Even Christians realise how bad those values are and
> realise they have to reject them - which is what they do and what you
> do.

Note the claim that whatever values happen to be current in the
country and period in which he happens to live are the absolute
standard of morality; and that biblical values, by failing to conform,
are therefore inferior. I imagine any intelligent atheist reading
this will wince at this exhibition of bad logic.

> > Never mind whether the Christians are right;
>
> Obviously, the atheists here, do mind. And I suspect, that like me,
> they don't like being told what to mind and what not to mind - in
> other words, what to think and what not to think. There is a good
> chance that that's why we areatheistsand you are a Christian.

Note the irrelevant interjection, breaking up the point being made.

> > let us try to express, in words, whatatheistsactually DO (NB: not

> > the words, which tend to vary). My contention is thatatheists,
> > lacking any other rule, adopt some subset of the values of the
> > society in which they live. Nor, of course, are they the only ones;
> > agnostics do as well. Everyone does.
>
> Yes, "[e]veryone does", except atheists and most agnostics aren't
> burdened with the cognitive dissonance of trying to entertain the
> unacceptable and often diabolical, biblical values. If we really
> intend to examine the values difference between us, we need to also
> examine those golden biblical values that you hold dear.

This is an admission of my contention (combined with the usual
irrelevance).

> > But... if we consider "societal values" as the real default
> > religious position of our age, then we need to look at it squarely.
> > Until we do, we will infallibly talk tosh.
>
> Wrong. Secular societal values don't constitute religion and atheism
> is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

... followed by a denial of the proposition just admitted. I infer
from this that Sean didn't like the word 'religious' so issued a
denial, regardless.

This is why I find atheists irrational. Convenience is a simple
guide, it is true; but rejecting whatever you don't like is not a
rational principle.

> > I have rarely seen this contention seriously addressed, and never
> > satisfactorily. This is one reason why atheists do not command my
> > intellectual respect.
>

> Apparently Mr.Pearsestill thinks that having his respect is
> something to be valued.

Some might think so.

> > If they spent any serious time thinking for themselves, they would
> > at least have thought this much out.
>
> Hang on, you have it back to front - boy oh boy, do you ever. 'Sheep'
> is the word that the New Testament uses to describe Christians, not
> unbelievers. Christians are supposed to be sheep. Didn't you know
> that? Peter, the one giving you tentative support, knows it. Being a
> sheep should be one of your 'values',Roger
>
> It's theism that has schools where the children are taught their
> position. It's Christian theism that has Sunday school, to make sure
> the kids are well and truly indoctrinated. It's theists that are
> supposed to go to some church/synagogue/mosque at least once a week
> for a belief top up. I have already argued that manyatheistslike
> yours truly and Theo (not sure about Barry's history) have, after
> their own investigations and thinking, rejected what they previously
> believed. Dan Barker was a prominent minister, who became troubled by
> inconstancies in the Bible. He eventually had to admit to himself that
> he no longer believed. That is how one becomes an atheist, by
> realising oneself, that all the stuff with which one has had been
> indoctrinated, is a contradictory, nonsensical, morally dubious house
> of cards. Becoming a Christian is very easy and generally just entails
> early induction and regular processing. It's hardly even voluntary.
> Individual thought is ideally suffocated.

It is hardly evidence that atheists think for themselves when they
respond to a query about it with an irrelevant stereotypical diatribe
against Christians, is it?

Let us suppose t hat every word of this is true, and that every word
of it is original. If so, it would nevertheless not rebut my comment
about atheists. If I criticise A, it is no rebuttal for A to say "oh
but B is much worse."

This failure of elementary logic demonstrates my point. If Sean had
*thought* at all about my comment, or indeed his own, how could he
have failed to see this?

I am sorry to have to make so simple a point. But this failure
appeared repeatedly in the post to which I responded; and appears
again in this one. What will it take for Sean to read and understand
this?

> >> I have recently and in the past assumed the implication of that
> >> very juxtaposition, Christian permanence versus atheistic arbitrary

> >> convenience, and have responded accordingly. Mr.Pearse's

> >> systematic response is to snip the reply, say, "inability to
> >> answer, noted" (or similar), "Change of subject noted" (or similar)
> >> add several smug and pretentious emoticons like "<Chortle>", accuse
> >> the other person of lying, add other various insults and
> >> denigration, insanely charge that other person with abuse, be
> >> thoroughly rude, obnoxious and supercilious throughout and then
> >> claim victory - repeat all of that over and over, all over the Net.
> >> Others have made the same observations. This link provides one very
> >> astute example:
> >>http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...
> >> That is the exact formula he has used here. It isn't an aberration.

> >> Mr.Pearsehas shown, and continues to show (do a search in

> >> Google), that even remotely reasonable dialogue with him is
> >> impossible. I request that we not pretend otherwise.
> > Two paragraphs of personal invective; irrelevant.
>
> That comes from the person who interjected with immediate personal
> slurs, and whose every post up to this one and since, has been
> remarkable for its invective.

Note the tu quoque, rather than addressing the point.

> Here is whatPearseconsiders to be of

> proper relevance:
>
> ~ Little Sean was accused of being a moron. Instead of addressing it,
> ~ he's frantically trying to change the subject. If that doesn't work,
> ~ he tries lying. [Mr.RogerPearse]
>

> Note that Mr.Pearsehas never actually pointed to a lie. Ironically,

> that tells us where the lie really is.

Note how Sean now quote-mines material from a different thread and
exchange. I imagine that we all know why people resort to such
desperate tactics; they cannot deal with the points being made.

> >>> It might have been a fair point for debate when he first offered
> >>> it, but it's now become something of a mantra on his part.
> >> Given his outrageous behaviour, "something of a mantra" is a
> >> generous understatement, if not a euphemism. This page is another

> >> place that Mr.Pearsehas left his mantra:

> >>http://groups.google.co.in/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/christia...
> >>~ 9. Don't try to tell them "well you can't disprove god" because
> >>~ then they will start trying to disprove it. Instead ask them to
> >>~ define [sic] why they just live in some convenient conformity to
> >>~ the societal values of the time in which they happened to be born.
> >>~ Watch them deny it, wriggle, change the subject; in short
> >>~ demonstrate that they have no rational basis on which to criticise
> >>~ anyone. [RogerPearse]

> >> Starting with, "Instead ask them . . ." Mr.Pearserudely appended

> >> his 'value' droppings onto 9, which was a suggestion from another
> >> contributor. In doing so he changed its whole flavour, making 9
> >> clash with the spirit of the rest of the page. The page's creator,
> >> "OldMan" apparently quickly recognised for the vitriol it was and
> >> removed it the day after it was deposited.
> > Two more paragraphs of invective; again irrelevant. This time
> > discussing whether or not I should have edited some page or other in
> > some other forum. That can have no possibly relevance.
>

> So innocent and perplexed!Roger'sposts have been going go way

> beyond invective - I was simply stating verifiable facts. His posts
> have been comprising mostly of incontinent diatribe. Here was his
> introductory post:
>
> ~~ So, for much the same reason that you are an a-thorist, I am an
> ~~ a-yahwist. [Sean to Peter]
>

> ~ You are a moron, cupcake. [Mr.Pearseto Sean]

>
> And:
>
> ~ When you can discuss the values by which you live in a rational
> ~ manner, you will earn the right to discuss those of others.
>

> Before issuing his charges,Rogerwould seem to look in a mirror.

> That is so with each and every one of them.

Here again an irrelevant and rather dishonest attack on me
personally. If all of this were true, it would not advance his cause
one iota, rationally.

> >> Anyway, seeing as you have provided your interpretation ofPearse's

> >> argument, I will take the opportunity to address it in a sane and
> >> civilised environment.
> > Note the value-loading "sane and civilised."
>

> Pearse'suncivilised and unstable behaviour is something that has been

> noted by many others and not only here. This post is a vast
> improvement but it doesn't erase his previous or subsequent efforts.
> Had it not been for the latter, I might have answered this post
> more mildly.

Note the admission of abuse, and that the point made about value-
loading being ignored. But of course no rational response is
possible.

> >>~ Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an objective,
> >>~ unchanging standard whereas . . . [Jani]

> >> I have already refuted that with Mr.Pearsebut I'll start from

> >> scratch with all the points. I will argue against the proposal with
> >> the following, upon which I will afterwards expound:
> > Note the irrelevant claim to authority - "I have already refuted".
>

> The refutation is evidenced by Mr.Pearse'sside-stepping or snipping

> anytime I have shown the massive changes within Christianity - and I
> don't only mean changes just within its constituency, but even changes
> to its doctrines.

A further paragraph of irrelevance.

> >> 1. Contrary toPearse'simplication and your inference of the same

> >> (correct IMHO), Christianity does not have a permanent and absolute
> >> set of values.
> >> 2. Christians have themselves adopted societal values.
> >> 3. Many of the values that Christians would identify as being
> >> theirs, have been hijacked.
> >> 4. Most biblical values, that modern society rejects, are vastly
> >> inferior and many are evil.
> > Note that these four points discuss, not atheism, but Christianity.
> > Let us presume Christianity is untrue. It advances the case against
> > my point - that atheism amounts to conformity - not one iota.
>

> What Mr.Pearseseeks to do - make no mistake about it - is to suggest
> thatatheistshave inferior values.

It is always depressing to watch my actual words being ignored in
favour fo what I must be "seeking to do." I suppose that this means
that my logic is unanswerable to Sean -- although I wouldn't have
thought so, myself.

> But he doesn't want to do it by
> subjecting his alternative, Christianity, to similar scrutiny. He has
> yet to provide any justification for what is apparently a double
> standard and a painfully illogical method. Points 1 to 4 deal with one
> half of what both Jani and I (I'm pretty sure anyone else) inferred

> fromRoger'sinnuendo, that Christianity enjoys superior values to

> atheism. They expansion (below) on the four points outline points
> (above) show that Christianity hasn't at all got a strong position on
> values, ethics or anything else. As for the charge that atheism

> amounts to conformity, I shown below not only thatatheistsare not

> bound by conformity and that they are far less prone to conformity
> than Christians. But even the statement, "atheism amounts to
> conformity" is massively absurd. How can unbelief in anything, let
> alone something that is still popular, amount to conformity? Atheism
> amounts to what it means, unbelief in God and/or gods, and that is it.

Note the appeals, not to what I say, but to what I must apparently
mean. It would be better if my post was actually addressed, not what
Sean wishes I would say.

Note also a further switch in position: "atheists are not bound by
conformity". Why? Because "unbelief in anything" cannot "amount to
conformity." Quite why this should be, he does not explain. If I
detest cigarettes, does that somehow make me impervious to conforming
to societal values? I hardly think so.

> >>> [atheistscan only draw on societal values, which are flexible,

> >>> inconsistent, and may contradict themselves from one era / culture
> >>> to the next.]
> >> I notice that in the first part, you are talking about morality
> >> while in the second part, you are talking about values. Mr.Pearse
> >> only uses the more broad, 'values' and never resolves the issue. I
> >> also guessed he meant morality, but if so, why not just say,
> >> 'morality'?
> > Because there are many matters of behaviour which are not a matter
> > of morals, ethics, right or wrong.
>
> He tells us what they're not. How aboutRogertells us what they are?

Whether or not to wear white shirts with a tie or not would seem to be
an immediate example.

> > The question is "how do we choose to live our lives; where do we get
> > our values from; what shapes our way of life."
>
> This still doesn't tell us what the alternative 'values' are for the
> choice. Give some examples of 'values', please Mr.Pearse.

This seems to have nothing to do with my comment above.

> Note also that Mr.Pearseproposes, "how do *we* choose to live our lives"

> (asterisks mine), but wants to have himself and Christianity exempt
> from his 'values' scrutiny. He has been demanding to have atheism on
> the table and have that compared to some arbitrary, presumably ideal
> but unspecified/unidentified standard using unspecified values that he
> only identifies as 'values'.

I do wish that Sean could get over his obsession with Christianity.
Quite why he supposes that I wish to have it exempt from the process I
specify I do not know. It is not so exempt, and should not be. But
we are in no danger of not having Christianity examined. What I
suggest (summary of what I have said above) is that atheists do not
examine their position adequately. All positions must be examined.
Until atheists can state their position to a degree that is
acceptable, we need to continue to point out that this chasm underlies
all their critiques of anyone else.

Atheists seem to think this demand unreasonable. It isn't, tho. It
is merely ensuring that all the positions are put squarely on the
table.

> >> Anyway, to that second part I would submit the following arguments,
> >> again later expounding.
> > Note how this tends to make the whole post far longer, and spread
> > the points over a wearisome length. This sort of behaviour tends to
> > raise integrity questions. After all, faced with a simple point,
> > every politician flannels. It's a technique of evasion with which we
> > are all familiar.
>

> Making false complaints every other line, which is Mr.Pearse's

> 'technique', is itself a cheap form of 'evasion'.

This is not my "technique", but Sean's -- see his explanation of
"projection" earlier. Note that this attack on me does not deal with
the point at issue.

> If I had just left it at that,Pearsewould have had no hesitation in charging that I

> simply asserted. Those numbered points essentially provide an
> outline/index of 10 points, of an average of 1.5 lines each. Big deal!

> This again shows that Mr.Pearsewill look for anything to complain

> about and will try to twist it into something devious.

If Sean objects to my complaints about his abuse, perhaps he should
try posting less of it? If he objects to my complaint about the
unnecessary prolixity of his posts, perhaps he would be more concise,
and introduce less irrelevancy?

> The following is from a page on how to present debates:
>
> http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/resources/guide_deane.pdf
>
> ~ Beginning a speech with a quick introduction and then giving an
> ~ outline of the speech’s structure (and sticking with it) develops an
> ~ involvement on the part of listeners, an understanding of where the
> ~ speaker is heading and what they are trying to achieve.
>
> That also applies to debates. It goes onto explain, with several
> points, how an outline helps to get the structure across. Where I used
> the outline/index, it also showed how they were to be divided in
> relation to Jani's comments.

Note that Sean has now started to write an essay on debate technique,
in response to my comment that he was spinning things out. We may
imagine why he introduces irrelevancy at length like this.

> Now if he is to be consistent, Mr.Pearse
> will charge that all this is irrelevant. In his mind, only his
> opponent's defences against accusations are irrelevant, not the

> accusations themselves. Such is Mr.Pearse'slogic and his Christian
> 'values' set.

It is news to me that brevity and relevance are Christian values; I
believe they are valued by every honest writer.

> >> 5. Societal trends are part of nature and evolution.
> >
> > Surely; but to argue from "something happens" to "something is right
> > to happen" is a simple fallacy.
>

> So would Mr'sPearselike to tell us his alternative and how he knows

> that it isn't fallacious?

Alternative to what? I note that my comment has not been addressed,
tho.

> There really is no such thing as absolute
> right and absolute wrong and even if there were, neither Mr.Pearse
> nor other Christians would know what it is. As I point out below, just
> as in biological evolution, ideas/developments that aren't beneficial,
> are eventually filtered out.

The relevance of this to my comment is unclear, tho.

> >> 6.Atheistsdon't simply hold values that are convenient to the

> >> society into which they are born.
> > It will be interesting to see some proof of this assertion.
>

> See! Just as I said, Mr.Pearsewould charge the index/outline as

> being assertions, precisely why I needed to expound (below).

Note the absence of any answer.

> >> 7. Arguing against atheism, on the basis of 'values', is a red
> >> herring.
> > Discussing what atheism means, on the ground, seems to be a rather
> > important point all by itself.
>
> Atheism means not believing in God or gods, period!

Back to the first of the two positions between which Sean
oscillates. :-)

> >> 8.Atheistscan arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that

> >> of average society and/or Christianity.
> > This assertion, if. There is a scale of values, measured how? Is
> > this an appeal to an absolute morality? If so, where does it come
> > from?
>
> But can't I equally ask, how you determine - assuming for the moment

> thatatheistsonly conveniently conform to society's values - that

> that is bad? What are you using as a measure, Mr.Pearse? Nominate
> your standard.

This is a dodge; a simple tu quoque, which informs us not at all on
the subject under discussion.

> Returning to that point:
>
> ~~ 8.Atheistscan arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that

> ~~ of average society and/or Christianity. [Sean]
>
> ~ This assertion, if. There is a scale of values, measured how? Is
> ~ this an appeal to an absolute morality? If so, where does it come
> ~ from? [RogerPearse]
>
> Why absolute? Why not relative? Anyway, I'll apply to the examples
> any standard you nominate as being genuinely meritorious. How's that
> for a deal? By the way, did you see the word, "arguably"?

As is this, sadly.

> >> I will also add the following comments toPearse'scriticisms:

> >> 9. Mr.Pearsehasn't presented a logical criticism of societal
> >> values.
> > Perhaps because I have yet to getatheiststo agree that they live

> > by them.
>
> But I definitely have maintained, that though it isn't the only thing

> thatatheistslive by,atheistsdo adopt societal values (as do

> Christians). I have just conceded that again.

Back to position two of the two positions between which Sean
oscillates.

> So why are they inferior, Mr.Pearseand by what means have you determined that

> inferiority? Produce your measuring system and justify it.

Note how he takes my query above and, without answering it, tries to
get me to do the work instead. It has no relevance, of course, to my
comment.

> >> 10. His charges would also have to apply to agnostics.
> > Indeed they would, and many others.
> >> Now to expound:
> > Am I the only one faintly reminded of a dreary old pulpit here? Are

> > allatheistsrenegades from a really tedious religious upbringing?

> > (which I never had, I should add).
>
> Who would doubt that Mr.Pearsehad an 'interesting' upbringing?

Note the lack of response to the point made, and the attack on me.

> >>~ Mr P., he argues that Christian morality is an objective,
> >>~ unchanging standard whereas . . . [Jani]
> >> 1. Christianity does not have a permanent and absolute set of
> >> values.
> >> Christians no longer espouse slavery and they no longer kill
> >> witches. [snip]
>

> Rogersnipped the the rest of the Christian injustices that were

> committed with the sanction of the Bible.

And why? Because...

> > Here we get into a long anti-Christian rant.
>

> What is it, Mr.Pearse, do facts make you uncomfortable? I am saying

> that Christians no longer behave like that. Would you want to argue
> that they do? That they used hold those dreadful ideals (or 'values')
> with biblical sanction, is unequivocal.

Note the jeer, inserted before reading my explanation.

> > As I remarked above, it is irrelevant. That Christians think they do
> > have a single standard, and are trying to adhere to it is beyond
> > question.
>

> No,Roger, Christians aren't trying to adhere to it because they

> realise that to do so (to follow the Bible) would be abominable.

Sean may assert that Christians do not attempt to follow a moral
standard. I think otherwise. I leave that to any others reading.

> > That they often fail, are often influenced by the society in which
> > they live,
>
> If they succeeded - if they weren't influenced by society - they would
> still be polygamists, they would be killing witches, homosexuals and
> people who work on Saturday. They would be also killing unbelievers.
> These days, the hate of the zealots is limited mainly to Internet
> Inquisitions. Modern society has turned Christian zealots into more
> civilised people - even you,Roger.

More ranting, irrelevant to the point made -- in mid-sentence, no
less! Why can't Sean just address the point I make squarely, rather
than producing this stale old hate-invective as if I were making some
other point?

> > is a fact. When that society grows depraved, they join the Nazi
> > party; when it improves, they become campaigners for total
> > abstinence or whatever. But ... for an atheist, where is the rule
> > that keeps dragging them back to the centre?
>
> Funny you should bring up the Nazis. The Old Testament teaches that
> exterminating inconvenient groups is a good thing. Accordingly, on the
> Nazis' belt buckles were the words, "Gott mitt uns". It means, "God is
> with us".

Note that the point is ignored in favour of more rather silly
rhetoric.

> > Christians may be a pendulum, butatheists... where is the centre?

>
> Christian values aren't represented by a pendulum but by a timeline.

> There is no actual centre.Atheistsdon't have a value centre either.

Arguments by assertion, and the point made ignored.

> > I assert that [for the atheist] it is societal values, whatever they
> > are.
>
> As I have said, an atheist will _likely_ hold societal values
> (including altruism and organisational) and personal values (including
> inherent empathy). He might also hold philosophical values acquired
> through his own study. These generally require a level of thought
> beyond the social domain. The Christian will have the same as the
> above, except to that he will add the Bible. However the Bible becomes
> a dead horse to drag around. So much of its instruction is so unjust
> and diabolical that it needs to be diluted away with societal values.
> The Christian will also have his personal values, but on average, this
> will be to a lesser degree than with the atheist. The Christian, who
> will usually receive formal indoctrination, is told what to think much
> more than the atheist. Finally there are philosophical values. The
> atheist is more likely to be interested in philosophy and philosophy
> is not generally kind to Christian doctrines/concepts (e.g. blood
> atonement, original sin, hell). Christian philosophical analysis is
> usually just apologetics in disguise.

Two sentences of assertion, followed by anti-Christian invective. It
doesn't address my point, except to agree with it (for the moment).

A search on the internet will find any amount of the same invective.

> Then there are the OT items. Are you saying that the Old Testament is

> secondhand? We are talking 'values',Roger. Your peerless self

> appreciation might be fooling you into thinking that atheist values
> are up for criticism, and that your alternative, Christian values
> aren't, but that's you deluding yourself. I showed how Christian
> doctrine changed profoundly just in the time I was at school. I showed
> how messianic Judaism (earliest 'Christianity) was changed by Paul,
> how Paul's doctrine was different from that of James' ('brother of the
> Lord') Jerusalem Church and how the Gospels that came later, were a
> whole new thing again. Christianity has been evolving since it began.

More irrelevance. I have noted this repeatedly, and can only suppose
that it is intentional. I commented at the start on the troll tactic
of snowing the argument with irrelevance; it is depressing that Sean
didn't take the time to understand it.

> >> 2. Christians have themselves adopted societal values.
> >> Christians adopted monogamy to fall in line with Greco-Roman
> >> culture. This can be sufficiently supported by quoting Augustine.
> > Interesting. Please support it, then, by doing so. Quite how
> > Augustine would know it might be relevant to ask, but let's see the
> > evidence first.
>

> Rogershould read the whole thing before typing. I quoted Augustine
> below.

Had Sean read my comment below, he would have grasped that Augustine
says no such thing.

> Note again how he will criticise brevity as assertion and will
> criticise detail as irrelevant.

Brevity is good; detail is good. Assertions are bad, and pages of
diatribe against Christians are irrelevant. It is unfortunate that
Sean cannot see this.

> Note that Rogeris talking about white Christians ...

Note that Sean puts words in my mouth. I said no such thing, and hold
no such view.

> ... and talking about their changing *societal* values. He dare not appeal to their the

> biblical values because he knows that the Bible sanctions slavery.

A further diatribe, of no relevance to my comment above, combined with
statements about me which he cannot possibly know to be true. This is
contemptible; Sean should stick to things which he actually knows to
be true, and cease asserting as fact things which he merely wishes
were so.

> > An atheist living in 1900 would consider much of this contemptible
> > and immoral. An atheist living in 2100 may well do the same.
>
> Unfortunately for Pearse and his wishing well,atheistshave
> traditionally been the opponents of slavery:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistmoral.html
>
> ~ The call for the abolition of black slavery came not from Christians

> ~ but fromatheistsgenerally. Slavery was abolish in France in 1791,

> ~ not by the church, but by the atheistic founders of the revolution.
> ~ In the U.S. the early critics of slavery, Benjamin Franklin
> ~ (1706-1790), George Washington (1732-1799), Thomas Jefferson
> ~ (1743-1826) and John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), were all either

> ~atheistsor Deists. Later the abolitionist cause was taken up by

> ~ such people as Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), a Deist, Raplh Waldo
> ~ Emerson (1803-1882), a Unitarian minister turned atheist, and
> ~ William Lyold Garrison (1805-1879), an atheist. In England, the
> ~ battle for the abolition of slavery was fought mainly by such as
> ~ Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) -
> ~atheistsall.
>

> Atheistshave led the way with social reform rather than followed it.

> It is the Church that would drag things back to the past.

And Sean is off, on yet another irrelevant diatribe, this time making
absurd statements about slavery and atheism. None of this is relevant
to my comment.

> > Likewise note the assertion that morality evolves. This again
> > amounts to acceptance of the statement that I am making; that
> > atheism consists of conformity to whatever is fashionable.
>

> Please get a clue Mr.Pearse! Atheism consists of not believing in

> God, period! Got it? And let's be glad that morality evolves. That's

> why believers in the ancient god Yahweh (likePearse) no longer go

> around killing those with whom they disagree.

Sean again ignores my argument, and produces a knee-jerk response.
He's switched back to position one of the two between which he
oscillates. I do wish that my argument was addressed, tho. None of
this tripe does that.

> > When times change, atheism changes.
>
> Wrong!! When times change, Christianity changes. Atheism is simply the
> unbelief in God and gods. When times change, that doesn't change.

The knee is still jerking, unfortunately. Atheists of the 19th
century believed that sodomy was wrong. Those of the 21st century
believe that any discussion of it other than in terms of warmest
approval is wrong. What has atheism, narrowly defined, to say on
either subject? Nothing. Yet this is what being an atheist means; to
adopt the societal values of the period. It is idle to try to ignore
what it means to be an atheist.

> > Loading this with 19th century ideas of progress is amusing, but
> > fallacious.
>

> So how didRogerdemonstrate that fallaciousness? He did it with

> speculation about what an atheist "may" (sic) think about slavery in

> 2100. I am providing facts;Rogeris presenting a wish list and using

> bluster to distract from his deficiency.

My point, once again, goes unnoticed. Quite where I discussed slavery
I don't know!

> >> 3. Many of the values that Christians claim as being of Christian
> >> origin, have actually been hijacked.
>

> Rogerignored the following section. It showed, beyond any doubt, that

> permission for polygamy comes straight from the Bible.

Which is relevant how to what atheist values are? Unless atheists are
proposing to follow the bible and practise polygamy? It's disgusting
to see all this tripe injected into the debate.

> You are in denial, Mr.Pearse. It's rather straightforward. Augustine

> is saying that times have changed and that from now on, one is to live
> according to the Roman custom and only take one wife. Also his words,
> "[I]t is *no longer allowed* to take another wife", unequivocally
> indicate that polygamy was previously permitted with Christianity.

Sean has not troubled to verify what Augustine says; he merely asserts
what it is supposed to mean. Sadly for him, it isn't true.

> http://www.righteouswarriors.com/questions/q30.html
>
> ~ We know that early Christians, as well as non-Christian Jews,
> ~ continued taking multiple wives for several centuries after Messiah,
> ~ based on the writings of Josephus in the first century, of Justin
> ~ Martyr in the second century, and even a Roman law passed in 212 AD
> ~ to "tolerate" Jewish polygyny. So let's start by looking at what St.
> ~ Augustine wrote regarding polygyny in The Good of Marriage. In
> ~ chapter 15, he said that although it "was lawful among the ancient
> ~ fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily
> ~ pronounce.
>
> ~ "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no
> ~ longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one
> ~ wife living" - St. Augustine (from "A Selected Library of Nicene and
> ~ Post-Nicine Fathers of the Christian Church", Philip Schaff, Vol
> ~ III, pg. 428)
>
> ~ These quotes make it quite clear that Roman custom, not Scripture,
> ~ was the reason polygyny was "made" a sin.

It must be nice to believe what websites tell you. I myself prefer to
verify my facts. That the author of that did not can be determined
from the reference he gives.

> But more importantly, and what I showed, is that the polygamy comes

> straight from the Bible.Rogerignored that section entirely. Here is

> part of it:
>
> `` [P]olygamy is clearly permitted for the Bible's leading figures.
> `` Unlike adultery, polygamy is never condemned. In the Bible, God
> `` would see adulterers killed. Though several examples are available,
> `` I'll provide just three to show that polygamy was biblically
> `` acceptable. The Bible tells us that he was on the right side of the
> `` Lord (1 Kings 15:5). Being called 'Son of David' even lent Jesus
> `` importance. King David had at least seven wives! In the parable of
> `` the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) Jesus portrays himself as the
> `` groom marrying five of the virgins. There is nothing in there to
> `` indicate a problem with the polygamous relationship in which Jesus
> `` portrays himself. [Sean]

God, he hasn't posted all this crap again, has he? <wince>

> Just by itself, that shows that Christianity does not have an absolute

> set of values asRogerclaims above. With Augustine's decree,

> Christianity adopted societal values, while rejecting biblical values.
> This is be no means an aberration. Even the Christian realises, at
> some level, that the Bible is on the nose and that too many of its
> values have no place in today's society.

The discussion, remember, is about atheism and atheist values. Note
the utter irrelevance of these pages on this subject.

> > I note the vagueness of the reference, and infer that this is being
> > copied from some other source, unstated.
>
> Is that a roundabout way of implying that it's bogus and that
> Augustine never made the statement about polygamy? If that's the

> charge, I'll leave the onus with Mr.Pearse. Here is another

> reference:
>
> ~ "A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicine Fathers of the
> ~ Christian Church", Philip Schaff, Vol III, pg. 428)

It seems that Sean has not verified this reference -- a quote posted
by him, used as evidence for a daft argument, and copied off a website
--, and demands that I do so. I hardly need say more. Do honest
people use false evidence? Do they use evidence which they have not
verified.

I will not weary any reader to have got this far with further notes on
irrelevance. Nothing discussing Christianity is relevant. He's about
to write a load more tosh; I'm going to ignore it all until (if) it
gets relevant to atheism.

> > Christians believe in absolute morality.Atheistsdo not (although

> > Sean made an appeal to them earlier, when he referred to "more
> > moral"). But the idea that only Christians are moral is a curious
> > one.
>
> That's invalid logic, comparisons don't require absolutes. For
> example, given the same range, the sound of gun discharging will
> readily be recognised as being louder than the sound of a popping
> cork, without any referencing to an absolute loudness standard.Roger
> knows it's wrong to kill witches, unbelievers and people who work on
> Saturday. Does he need his 'absolute' standard to tell him that? No he
> does not. In fact, his absolute standard, his Bible, tells him killing
> these people is the right thing to do.
>
> > Again, what has any of this to do with atheism?
>
> That's like asking what a boat has to do with water. Without theism,
> there would be no point in atheism. Without the theist claiming
> Christian/absolute values, there would be no point defending the

> alternative.Rogerstill assumes that he can dictate the subject and
> the onus.

If my opinion is the one under discussion, I must ask that it is MY
OPINION that is discussed. Not what Sean imagines my opinion ought to
be, not some other subject that he is anxious to discuss. Just what I
think, thank you. It was, after all, my name that was copiously
sprinkled over 600 lines of his own imaginary discussion.

> He is yet to explain why I am any more obliged to justify
> atheist values than he is to justify Christian/theistic values.

Everyone is obliged to justify their own views, if they advance them,
surely? The inability of atheists to do so is what I highlight.

> He is also yet to explain how one is supposed to show that atheism does not
> entail inferior values (to his Christianity) without being able to do

> comparisons with Christianity. Recall too that Mr.Pearsehas now

> stated what Jani and I inferred, that while claiming that atheism is

> limited to societal values,Rogerholds that Christianity has absolute

> >> been rejected byatheistsand Christians alike. To appeal to the

> >> Bible for absolute values is to appeal to backwardness and
> >> ignorance.
> > These three paragraphs of standard atheist ranting are mainly
> > irrelevant.
>

> They are only irrelevant to one who wants to condemnatheists' values

> while putting his head in the sand over his own supposedly absolute
> values. The incomplete list I gave was part of _your_ 'absolute'

> values set,Roger. I must say I find it remarkable that anyone could

> essentially defend, by dismissing as 'irrelevant', values like slavery
> and the killing of 'witches', Sabbath workers, altar transgressors,
> adulterers, unbelievers, heathen races and the enemies' babies. They
> are only a few of the God sanctioned atrocities. Even if my only
> guidelines were modern societal values, I would take them any day over
> such barbarity.
>
> > But surely they do, once again, prove my point? "Societal values" is
> > the absolute.
>
> Where did you get that?

Here Sean changes tack again. Apparently he no longer lives by
societal values, as he did a few pages earlier. If he spent less time
pasting stuff off the web about the Christians, this problem with his
argument would appear more clear to him.

> The sick values I listed were from the Bible,
> the supposed 'absolute' value set. You and your fellow apologists wear
> that burden, not western society per se. If you mean that society
> pronounces such values as unacceptable, is that to say that you don't?
> I would really like an answer to that; do you find those biblical
> values acceptable or not?
>
> > To conform to it is to be "decent". Of course in a depraved society,
> > such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, the same logic works any
> > evil.
>
> Ultimately it didn't work as both collapsed. If we applied you
> 'absolute' biblical values, evil of that kind would continue. The
> biblical God and his people were as brutal and evil as any ugly
> historical example you can mention. The difference between me (and

> presumably otheratheists) and Christian apologists, is that I don't

> need to try to defend monstrous ancient/primitive values and vaguely
> hold them up as a standard to which one should aspire. I recognise
> them for what they are and reject them without mincing words.

In all this, my actual comments have gone unanswered, however.

> >> Now, Jani, for the last part of your inference of Mr.Pearse's
> >> challenge:
> >>~ . . .atheistscan only draw on societal values, which are

> >>~ flexible, inconsistent, and may contradict themselves from one era
> >>~ culture to the next. [Jani]
> >> 5. Societal trends are part of nature, evolution and generally
> >> represent advancement.
> >> The process of genetic evolution will include natural altruism
> >> because it is something beneficial to a species. This is probably
> >> the most important value and it it isn't as arbitrary to a society

> >> as Mr.Pearse'schallenge would wishfully suggest. Even lower

> >> animals display it regularly.
> > Assertions of this nature seem quite 19th century.
>
> Huh? Where did you dig that up? Evolutionary theory is still the
> current theory and that fact that animals display cooperation is
> obvious. If that weren't so, a mother wouldn't even feed her young;
> she would only be interested in feeding herself. We have wild
> kookaburras here and we often see different adults feeding other
> birds' babies. Choughs - we also get those - are also birds that will
> feed the babies of others. Altruism is hardwired and is a product of
> evolution:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
>
> ~ Biological Altruism
>
> ~ In the 1960s and 1970s a rival theory emerged: kin selection or
> ~ ‘inclusive fitness’ theory, due originally to Hamilton (1964). This
> ~ theory, discussed in detail below, apparently showed how altruistic
> ~ behaviour could evolve without the need for group-level selection,
> ~ and quickly gained prominence among biologists interested in the
> ~ evolution of social behaviour; the empirical success of kin
> ~ selection theory contributed to the demise of the group selection
> ~ concept. However, the precise relation between kin and group
> ~ selection is a source of ongoing controversy.

Several pages pasted, irrelevantly, in response to the first sentence
of my comment. I do wonder why anyone would do this.

> > But again, what is the argument? That we should do whatever benefits
> > a species, or a society?
>
> It's in keeping with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
> you". That is something that has been exposed across civilised
> cultures well before the less civilised subculture, Christianity,
> began.

Note the value-loading "civilised", used as an expression of
approval. No doubt the value is widespread. Why that means it should
be adopted is not explained, nor how this relates to my question.

> > Again, societal values appear, governing the very terms in which
> > this is expressed. And if we read an atheist of 2 centuries ago, we
> > would find a different set. And if we could read an atheist of 2
> > centuries hence, we would find a different set.
>

> Sure there will be differences, but let's see Mr.Pearseprovide more

> than the vaguest hand waving to show that the values ofatheistsover
> time will change more than the values of Christians. I have shown in
> several places how dramatically Christianity has changed over time,
> not only in practices but also in doctrine.Pearsetried to put the

> focus ontoatheistswith regard slavery, making out that an atheist

> would have supported it in the 19th century and might again support it
> in 2100. He used unsupported assertion for the first part and simply a
> poorly disguised wish for the second. I showed, that when Christianity
> in the US finally took the position that slavery was morally wrong,

> prominentatheistshad already been there for many years - certainly

> during and before the 19th century.
>
> > To appeal to "progress" as a justification of change is to beg the
> > question. In my time, at least, progress has ceased.
>
> If one looks at it long-term there is no question that there has been
> overall progress. Just comparing today's society to the barbaric
> attitudes, described in the OT, is sufficient to demonstrate that.

Perhaps we might compare today's society to that of 1960?

> We are also more morally and ethically advanced than the Greco-Roman
> culture that positively influenced Christianity.

"Advanced" relative to what standard? There is an appeal to some
absolute standard here; how else can one tell in which direction
change is happening? But... a little while ago, Sean didn't believe
in absolute standards.

Now I don't want to pillory Sean here; he doesn't quite know what he's
doing. But I do know, and will attempt to offer my thoughts.

There are various cliches in circulation, and he is repeating a
selection, which are not actually consistent one with another. This
is why some of his statements are value-loaded; because they are so
loaded in our society. But critical thinkers must junk those attempts
to load the statements, and see what if anything lies underneath. It
reminds me of a line in a Terry Pratchet novel, where he mentions
words that would whore in the street for anyone. The use of the word
"vibrant" is an example, in our day -- a cliched expression of
approval.

The truth is that those who originate these cliches care nothing for
anything except to make the societal values of their own time accepted
by those who live in those societies.

Another long and tedious paste off the web follows, irrelevant as
ever. It is a pity that Sean didn't take English at school, for any
teacher of composition would have taught him how to write.

> is speculation? What planet isPearsefrom? Books didn't even exist in

> HerePearseseems to be objecting to conformity per se.

Note that Sean addresses, not what I say, but what he thinks I am
really saying. Tedious or what?!

> But isn't Christianity all about conformity? Here are some samples for DNA
> analysis:
>
> http://stlts.org/index.php/Background/Student-Life.html
>
> ~ Every student’s conduct is expected to conform to Christian values
> ~ and standards.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/phrase/river-of-life-church
>
> ~ Postings that do not conform to Christian values will not be
> ~ broadcasted
>
> http://www.biblestudies-online.com/Others/PhilofCE.html
>
> ~ God’s values for man are centered in His desire for man to conform
> ~ to the image that man has.
>

> So which is it, Mr.Pearse? Is conformity wonderful or dreadful?

>
> >> I will submit that very same memetic evolution that has modelled
> >> society, has simultaneously remodelled Christianity and will
> >> suggest (again) that that is why Christianity has changed so
> >> dramatically. But what this means is that the original Christian
> >> model is a failure and as such is another religion that memetic
> >> evolution has, for all but remnants and appearances, filtered out.
> >> The memetics of the new society might be flawed, but our society
> >> has already determined conclusively that certain religions,
> >> including true (1st century variety) Judeo-Christianity, are wrong.
> >> So at worst, the atheist with only modern societal values is
> >> backing a possible winner rather than a sure loser.
> >
> > This appears to be an acknowledgement that an atheist of today lives
> > by the values of 2009. I remember those values being invented,
> > mostly by people of few morals and who regarded rules as for others.
>

> It would seem thatRogercan remember back a very long time. Many of

> the values of western society of today, were invented back in the
> ancient Greco-Roman culture and are used because they still hold good
> today.

The values and ideas characteristic of 2009 are not the values of
Greece or Rome. They are not the values of 1960, never mind AD 60.

> >> 6.Atheistsdon't simply hold values that are convenient to the

> >> society into which they are born.

> >> Mr.Pearsewould seem to think that there are only two sources for

> >> values, societal and religious, but why does he assume that?
> >>http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/12916.html
> >>~ Some sources of values include personal values, societal values,
> >>~ religious values, and organizational values.

> >> So what about personal values? Does Mr.Pearsethink that there is

> >> no such thing as _personal_ values? Does he hold none? Assuming he

> >> does, on what basis does he assume thatatheistswouldn't also hold

> >> personal values? An atheist could also belong to one of many
> >> organisations and this will have an effect on his/her values. For
> >> example, he/she may belong to a political party, may be a member of
> >> the Sceptics Society or may be a humanist. An atheist can even
> >> belong to a church. In fact, I suspect that many do. However,

> >>atheists(especially avowed) generally represent the independent

> >> free thought end of town, so they are the least likely to
> >> unthinkingly follow and are the most likely to invoke their own
> >> personal opinions/values:
> >>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html
> >>~ I think it will come as no surprise to anyone if I point out to
> >>~ you that most Christians, if they were raised in a Moslem culture,
> >>~ would be Moslems, not Christians. Most Moslems, if they were
> >>~ raised in a Christian culture, would be Christians, not Moslems.
> >>~ And because atheism, at least in American culture, represents an
> >>~ unorthodox position, this accounts for why by and largeatheists
> >>~ are independent thinkers. To become an atheist in this culture you
> >>~ have to have at least enough independence to question the
> >>~ prevailing wisdom concerning religion, because you are inundated
> >>~ with this in school, by your parents, by your culture, and
> >>~ certainly by the mass media. [George H. Smith]
> >>Atheists. by their very nature, will have more independent opinions

> >> than most. If Mr.Pearsewants to criticise people who

> >> philosophically go with the flow of the environment in which they
> >> find themselves born, he should be criticising the likes of true

> >> Christians and Muslims, notatheists. He has it completely upside

> >> down and back to front.
> > This consists of a series of assertions, most irrelevant to the
> > point he claims to be addressing, because they change the point at

> > issue. The statement is thatatheistshold to societal values.

>
> They do, to a very large degree, hold to societal values.

Indeed. This is what we need to discuss.

> But so what? Christians do the same.
>
> > More accurately, in any society, the value-mix characteristic of
> > that period is a mish-mash. It is the mix that is characteristic.

> >Atheistsadopt some subset of this mix.

>
> So what? Christians also adopt societal values. The only way forRoger

> to show thatatheistshave some disadvantage is to submit and discuss

> the advantage the Christians (or theists) supposedly enjoy. He needs
> to do that specifically, not vaguely, otherwise the argument is
> meaningless.
>

> > The idea thatatheistshave independent opinions can be rebutted by

> > any examination of the values advanced byatheists.
>

> Perhaps Mr.Pearseisn't talking about earth. As I have already

> exhibited (by quoting Smith), people brought up in Christian
> environments tend to be Christians, while people brought up in Islamic
> states will almost always be Muslims. Religious folk will usually
> simply adopt the religions of their countries, families and others
> within their sphere. Just looking at the religious/geographical
> demographics will abundantly illustrate that. To deny it would be

> stupidity. Such conformity is usually not the case withatheists. Most

> have gone against the grain, some to great peril. The link I provided

> directs you to where manyatheistshave undergone a lot of rejection

> by family and friends when they confessed that they no longer

> believed.Atheiststend not to belong to atheist organisations;

> Christians and Muslims nearly always belong to their respective
> organisations. By saying it is the religious who think for themselves,

> not theatheists, Mr.Pearse'sapologetics would have us seeing black

> as white and white as black. He is being ridiculous and transparently
> so.
>
> > I believe that in the 70's people who claimed to be rebelling did so
> > by all going out and wearing blue jeans. The irony, it seems,
> > escaped them.
>

> Blue jeans? Irony? MrPearse,atheistsdon't take off their unbelief

> (like blue jeans) when the get home. It goes wherever that they go and
> nearly always lasts for the rest of their lives. It isn't some
> adolescent phase, as you would naively have it. If you wish to argue
> that it is simply rebellion, and not sincere (and often unsettling)
> unbelief, then the onus is on you to put up or shut up. I will again
> provide this link to a plethora of ex-Christian testimonies:
>
> http://www.ex-christian.net/lofiversion/index.php/f5.html
>
> What comes clearly across, is that these people haven't been doubting
> or unbelieving to be cool. Quite the opposite; they have usually felt
> alone and are relieved to find that there are others like them. This

> is a very different picture to the one that Mr.Pearsewould paint

> with his profoundly naive and wishful blue jeans analogy.

None of this seems to address my argument in any way.

> >> 7. Arguing against atheism, on the basis of values, is a red
> >> herring.
> >> Whether or not Albert Einstein was a nice person is irrelevant to
> >> the veracity of E=mc^2.
> >

> > Conceivably the same might apply to whetherRogerPearseis a nice

> > person, or whether Christians are nice people.
>
> Hang on. That clashes with Christian instruction from Jesus:

So? Is your statement correct or not?

> ~ Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
> ~ into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [Mat
> ~ 7:19-20]
>
> In other words, if the fruits of Christianity are bad (its
> constituents), one must suspect the tree. You really must try to at

> least remember your Christian values,Roger, just for old times'
> sake.

Dodge noted.

> >> In similitude, the only thing that will make atheism wrong is the
> >> existence of God or one of his competitors (e.g. Zeus or the

> >> Rainbow Serpent).Atheists' morality or values are merely a

> >> distraction, cynically employed by apologists to take the focus off
> >> Christianity's untenability.
> > This is a version of a standard argument. Atheism is about not
> > believing in gods,
>

> Ah,Pearsedoes know it, but like other apologists, he simply finds it
> convenient to forget it.
>
> > [Atheism is about not believing in gods,] it goes, soatheistsdon't

> > have to justify their beliefs. But discussing whether the
> > consequences of atheism, the values and ideas that go with it, are
> > correct is valid by itself. We could all be agnostics, after all.
>

> Pearseappears to be saying, that even if there is no God, not

> believing in God might be still necessitate invalidity!

This appears to be misunderstanding on Sean's part. A value system
can be wrong, whether it involves God or not. But I think Sean is
remembering debates with others and presuming that I am asserting the
same thing. Those of us who think for ourselves are somewhat used to
this, irritating as it is. Few people trouble to read.

> No,Roger can't turn, not believing what isn't true, into invalidity. But there
> is further excruciation inRoger'sthinking. If there is no God then

> his gold standard doesn't exist either, making his Christian values

> also 'invalid', making it illogical just to point atatheists' values

> in a godless universe. It would be like arguing, that in a godless
> universe, left-handed people would only have societal values. No
> matter how you cut it, to make any sense at all,Pearse'svalues
> argument needs to have God's existence as a premise before he can
> start using it to criticise atheism.
>

> >> What is more, Mr.Pearse'slogic is circular. For him to have any

> >> hope of claiming an absolute set of values to hold over atheism,
> >> his God needs to exist or have existed.
> >
> > A little knowledge of Plato or Cicero tells us different. Absolute
> > morality is not connected to religion.
>
> So where's the problem for atheism again?

The connection of this to my post is not indicated. Sean here is
oscillating back to a belief in absolutes, after his denials earlier.

> >> But that is to assume, as a premise, his conclusion in attacking
> >> atheism. He first needs to show the atheist that his absolute God
> >> does exist. But once he has done that, there would be no need to
> >> bother arguing about values.
> >
> > This is a demand that atheism should not be criticised on the
> > grounds that I have done.
>
> It isn't rocket science. The alternative to the values that you
> criticise, is supposed to be 'absolute' values/morality. If, in

> accordance with theatheists' position, there is a no God, then

> Christians don't have special absolute values and don't actually have
> any alternative. If there is no God, it means we all get our values
> form the same kind of sources. The major difference then is, that
> Christians are deluding themselves. For there to be absolute value for
> the theist, but not the atheist, a transcendental source must exist

> for the theist. Therefore,Roger'schallenge is necessarily based on

> the assumption that God exists. But of course, the atheist can't
> accept such a premise because he doesn't believe in God. IfRogercan
> establish that the atheist has it wrong and that God exists, then he
> has his premise, but once he has that, arguing for Christian superior
> values (and therefore theism) becomes quite redundant.

This appears to be a reiteration of one of his earlier anti-Christian
diatribes. As ever, it's irrelevant to my comments. Introduced here
it disrupts the flow of my argument -- which in turn partly explains
Sean's failure to address the latter.

> > I see no reason not to raise the issue, since it affectsatheists
> > every day of their lives, and their inability to address it must be
> > deleterious.
>
> No, not living by the Bible's values is _not_ deleterious,Roger,
> quite the contrary. It's _actually_ living by the use-by-date-expired
> Bible that would be deleterious, a disaster in fact. That is why you

> don't live by its values either. What affectsatheistslives everyday,

> are almost certainly the sort of things that affect Christians lives
> just as regularly. The sky doesn't fall in when you become an atheist.
>

> > If atheistswant to live in conformity to what some newspaper

> > proprietor chooses to allow in his newspaper, that is their right.
>

> And? It is as muchRogerPearse'sright to live in conformity to some

> newspaper, if he wants to. I for one write to newspapers when I
> disagree with what they say. Evidence of such appears in newsprint.
> Unfortunately I am unable to reciprocate further by saying, that if a
> Christian wants to live in conformity with a dubious and dark ancient
> text, then he can. He can't; it wouldn't be tolerated.
>
> > I am not concerned with that! What I do ask, is that they are aware
> > of what they have chosen to do. As this very long post indicates,
> > they are not.
>

> What have I chosen to do? I don't believe inRoger'sGod, the end.

> Even if I were promised fortune for believing in his God tomorrow, I
> wouldn't be able to do it any more than I would be able to start
> believing in the tooth fairy. All I could do is pretend, which is

> probably what many do and what many Christians, likeRoger, would
> prefer me to do.

The obsession with God in these paragraphs masks a failure to address
my comment at all. It's tedious.

> >> 8.Atheistscan arguably be shown to have superior 'values' to that

> >> of average society and/or Christianity.
> >> Aside from the faulty logic of arguing against atheism on the basis
> >> of values, it employs a questionable innuendo. There is evidence

> >> thatatheistshave higher standards than average. Let's look at
> >> Christians versusatheistsin prison:
> >>AtheistsVersus Theists in Prison:

> >>http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/prison.htm
> >>~ Catholic 29267 39.164% Protestant 26162 35.008% . . Atheist 156
> >>~ 0.209% Hindu 119 0.159%

> >> Now let's compareatheistsversus Christians in divorce rates:

> >>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
> >>~ The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of
> >>~ nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in
> >>~ contrast to 25 percent for the general population.
> >>~ Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible
> >>~ churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the
> >>~ highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again
> >>~ Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more

> >>~ distressing for believers,atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate
> >>~ of divorce.
> > Erm, and where doatheistsget the moral value that it is better not

> > to be in prison, divorced, etc?
>
> I can use societal values, my own values or even your Christian values
> to determine that loyalty in a marriage and being lawful (and keeping
> out of prison), are desirable.

If Sean considers that moral values we made up ourselves, moral values
invented by someone working in a newspaper office, or moral values in
a religion in which we do not believe are in some way absolutes, then
of course he may! I don't think this has been thought through.

> It really must irkPearsethatatheists come off looking better in these regards.

I'm afraid Sean's perception of the standing of atheists in the world
at large and among the intelligent is rather skewed. I am not
disturbed by anything of the kind.

> So what are _your_ views on marriage,Roger, or are you unqualified to answer?

Note the further introduction of irrelevancy, in a post of 1600+
lines.

> > Most of this is irrelevant to *atheism*?
>
> Intrinsically, for atheism, that is quite so. However in a discussion

> aboutatheists' values versus the alternative, the fact thatatheists

> regularly display more desirable values, _is_ quite relevant. A

> dismissive wave of the hand, fromRoger, won't remove that fact.
>
> >> 9. Mr.Pearsehasn't presented a logical criticism of societal
> >> values.
> >> Re-quotingPearse:

> >>~ Instead ask them [atheists] to define [sic] why they just live in
> >>~ some convenient conformity to the societal values of the time in
> >>~ which they happened to be born.
> >> One can parody that with:
> >>~ Instead ask them [Christians] to define why they just live in some
> >>~ convenient conformity to the societal [laws] of the time in which
> >>~ they happened to be born.

> >> Mr.Pearsehas to clearly nominate the faults and compare them to

> >> his supposed Christian values. The fact that models have been
> >> changing doesn't mean that one should want the earliest model.
> >> Aircraft design has been changing for over a century. Would Mr.

> >>Pearsesuggest that we return to the Wright Brothers' Flyer?

> >> Similarly, saying societal values are 'convenient' doesn't
> >> necessarily constitute a valid criticism. I find it ultimately
> >> convenient that in driving in Australia, we all keep to the left -
> >> or most of us do. I would not like to see that convenient rule
> >> discarded. In any case, atheism is not a convenient position,
> >> especially if the atheist is living in a strongly Christian
> >> country. In the past it was even more inconvenient to be an avowed
> >> atheist; it could lead to a short life. If one goes to the
> >> ex-Christian site and reads the stories of those who have left
> >> Christianity, one will note how normal it is for the ex-Christians,
> >> following their conversion, to have upset in their lives, mainly to
> >> do with family and friends turning from them. I recommend one read
> >> some of the testimonies here to find out how 'convenient' the
> >> ex-Christians have discovered it to be:
> >>http://www.ex-christian.net/lofiversion/index.php/f5.html

> >> Clearlyatheistswho are prepared to go through this, aren't doing

> >> it with the idea of placating family and society. They are doing it
> >> out of a sense of right; they can simply pretend no longer.
> > Unfortunately it is not made clear, in all this, just why I have to

> > defineatheistsvalues for them.

>
> You don't have to do it at all and it one would request that you
> don't. You seem to be determinedly ignorant about what atheism is. If

> not even an atheist can speak on behalf of otheratheists, beyond the

> fact that they don't believe, what makes you think you can?

Amusing to be challenged to define atheists' values, and then told I
mustn't. :-)

> > At the moment I am having difficulty getting them to even
> > acknowledge their position.
>
> Atheists' position: We don't believe in God or gods. It's that simple.

> Beyond that, one isn't in a position to speak on behalf of otheratheists. Mr.Pearsemight as well ask a

> non stamp collector to 'define' the value system of not collecting stamps.

And Sean switches back to position one again.

> >> Just one more item.
> >> 10. To be consistent,Pearse'scharges must logically also apply to
> >> agnostics.
> >> Mr.Pearse'scharges are exclusively laid againstatheists, but it

> >> is hard to see how they would not apply to agnostics as well. This
> >> would include the agnostic, Peter, with whom I was conversing when

> >> Mr.Pearsefirst entered and it would presumably include you too.

> >> Agnostics also lack belief in God and his (supposedly) Bible and
> >> can't use it as an absolute authority on values. So why does Mr.

> >>Pearsespare such a large group from his focus and accusations? I
> >> suggest it is because he passionately hatesatheists, seeing them

> >> as the most vocal and damaging, and wants to marginalise and
> >> silence them. I have also noted of late, a strange tendency for
> >> Christian apologists to count agnostics as being on their side.
> >
> > As I indicated, agnostics also live by societal values. Most of
> > those people who attack me online turn out to beatheists, repeating
> > slogans.
>

> MorePearseprojection, or is it just auto-whine?

No answer, of course.

> > I try to get them [atheists] to think for themselves.
>
> It is ironic, that Peter whom you rightfully thanked for his support
> in this exchange, later, in anger over Rowland supposedly not being a
> proper Christian minister, made this statement to Mark:
>
> ~ People who want to think for themselves have no business being
> ~ christians. [blofelds_cat]
>
> Do find that as amusing as I do, Mr.Pearse?

Instead of addressing my comment, Sean introduces what he says is an
extract of some other post. Again, irrelevant.

> > It's usually vain, tho.
>
> Perhaps that's because you are a 'proper' Christian. "Physician, heal
> thyself" (Luke 4:23).

Note that again Sean changes the subject from atheism to sneer
irrelevantly at Christianity.

> >> So Jani, if you've made it to here, thanks. I'd like your opinion
> >> on whether or not I have dodged Mr.Pearse'schallenge.
> >
> > I think that you have endorsed my point. You live by the societal
> > values of the country and time in which you happened to be born. You
> > might have said so, surely, in rather less than 600 lines. I don't
> > quite see why you deny that nearly all atheists do so the same.
>
> I have said so, several times.

And back to position two. Swing...swing...swing.

> I have also said that you too, live by societal values.

Several times; quite amusing, considering that you don't know me.

> I have also said that I also live by personal values, philosophical values and hardwired genetic values.
> I have said that,
> however, unlike you, I am not burdened with trying to rationalise
> immoral, diabolical and useless biblical values, the ones that
> Christians have to discard anyway.

And how I wish that, instead of repeating this silliness, you had
addressed my comments.

> > I haven't snipped a line of this,
>
> Untrue, but still, it was refreshingly close to the truth. You snipped
> the following from the second sentence on:
>
> `` Christians no longer espouse slavery and they no longer kill
> `` witches. They no longer ban the eating of pork and they no longer
> `` insist on circumcision and the silence of women in church. They are
> `` no longer polygamists. They no longer worship in synagogues. They
> `` no longer celebrate (value) the Passover. Their holy day of worship
> `` is no longer the Sabbath (Saturday). These are just a few examples.
> `` [Sean]

Oh I did? Drat. I did try not to. Must have forgotten what life was
like before I started.

> > stuffed full of irrelevance as it is. Who can deny that it would be
> > far easier to read if I had?
>
> Snip-edit-diatribe-run is always going to be easier to read,

I defer to your experience of such habits.

> but who but a disturbed dimwit would want to? The vote has already been cast,Roger, and it hasn't favoured you.

Sean: until you deal with reality as it is, rather than as you wish it
was; until you deal with the arguments I make, rather than those you
thought I did; until you give up the dodgy tactics and start thinking
about what is said, it is unlikely that you will achieve much. Anyone
can "win" a debate by adopting wrecking tactics.

You see, I'm afraid that you haven't addressed my points in any
important respect, it seems to me. If you did, your argument was lost
in the snow of irrelevancies; but I don't think you did. You're
working with cliches, and they're letting you down. You truly haven't
thought through what they mean, or you wouldn't have oscillated the
way you did in this post. I don't say that as a jeer -- what is it to
me how you feel about me? -- but as advice.

Why not go through your post, and omit every sentence talking about
Christianity; every sentence talking about me. Stick to atheism. See
what is left. The experience will be salutary.

Until we know what we believe and why, we can do little save conform.
It is terribly difficult to utter any thought which we have not the
words to say. Atheists as a group display almost no self-knowledge,
and listening to them yelling stale old jeers at Christianity is
tedious beyond belief. My apologies if the process is painful, but I
hope my queries will have helped you to see your words as others will
see them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Barry]

"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d9333d0e-b81b-40e8...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>It is nice to see an attempt at replying to my post, after over a week
>of delay and several posts consisting mainly of abuse or attempts to
>change the subject. It is depressing to see the quantity of low-
>grade personal invective that it contains. I had hoped for a more
>rational reply.
>
>The key point that I was asserting is that atheists live by some
>subset of whatever happen to be the values of the period in which they
>happen to live.

The standards attributed to God are those of the period in which God was
created.
Most Christians however, live by some subset of the values of the period

in which they happen to live.

>Roger Pearse

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:05:20 +1100, "Barry" <find.it@yellow> wrote:

>"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:d9333d0e-b81b-40e8...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>It is nice to see an attempt at replying to my post, after over a week
>>of delay and several posts consisting mainly of abuse or attempts to
>>change the subject. It is depressing to see the quantity of low-
>>grade personal invective that it contains. I had hoped for a more
>>rational reply.

I see he's still the same old whining hypocrite.

Which is fact not the "personal invective" he pretends.

>>The key point that I was asserting is that atheists live by some
>>subset of whatever happen to be the values of the period in which they
>>happen to live.
>
>The standards attributed to God are those of the period in which God was
>created.
>Most Christians however, live by some subset of the values of the period
>in which they happen to live.

I have never understood why they imagine otherwise.

Atheists have "standards plus empathy"

Which Pearse's kind of Christian don't.

>>Roger Pearse

[Bob T.]

On Feb 9, 5:10 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:

Kudos on your wonderful post. Really a very, very impressive piece of
work. It must have been very frustrating to put all that effort in
and have it fail to appear!.

>
> Thank you for reading it.
>
> > He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.
>
> Here is where one poster summed him up well:
>

> http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...

>
> ~ One has to admire the Roger Pearse method of argument:
> ~
> ~ 1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.
> ~ 2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the
> ~ burden of proof to your opponents.
> ~ 3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable
> ~ to respond.
> ~ 4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave
> ~ with an arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a
> ~ punch in the nose in real life."
>
> I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.

After I encountered Roger a few times I coined the verb "to pearse" to
describe the above behavior.

Again, nice post.

- Bob T.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sean McHugh- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Sean McHugh]

"Bob T." wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 5:10 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Kudos on your wonderful post. Really a very, very impressive piece of
> work. It must have been very frustrating to put all that effort in
> and have it fail to appear!.

The blasphemy isn't repeatable.

> > Thank you for reading it.
> >
> > > He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.
> >
> > Here is where one poster summed him up well:
> >
> > http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...
> >
> > ~ One has to admire the Roger Pearse method of argument:
> > ~
> > ~ 1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.
> > ~ 2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the
> > ~ burden of proof to your opponents.
> > ~ 3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable
> > ~ to respond.
> > ~ 4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave
> > ~ with an arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a
> > ~ punch in the nose in real life."
> >
> > I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.
>
> After I encountered Roger a few times I coined the verb "to pearse" to
> describe the above behavior.

I think it could also be used as a common noun.

> Again, nice post.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[panam...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 9, 7:45 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:

> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > %%
>
> > > Roger Pearse wrote:
>
> > snip, but only for bandwidth...
>
> > Hear, hear!
>
> > Roger behaves the same way over here in alt.atheism (although after
> > having had his apologia handed back to him on multiple occasions, he
> > rarlely visits us anymore). I'm glad to see that someone has finally
> > called him to task for it.
>
> Thank you very much for that. I invited him to a moderated debate on
> the subject, actually posting the challenge in the forum. This was to
> be a formal debate where abuse would not be tolerated. Not only did he
> decline (which wasn't surprising), in the newsgroup he actually framed
> his refusal as my running from him. Here is where another poster
> (Jani) very politely pointed out his transparent BS:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/0b7141...

<chuckle> That's our Roger. The entire world is a rigged game, bent
upon a single purpose-keeping him from displaying his brilliance. Jani
pretty much hit the nail on the head.

> Pearse now has my allegedly undeliverable reply to his post. My offer
> to formally debate him is still open.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sean McHugh

Roger's problem seems to be that he aches to be taken seriously as an
intellectual, in an age where Christian apologia has largely been
debunked. One hundred years ago, he *would* have been an intellectual,
and he doesn't realize the discussion has passed him by. If he were
merely content to discuss theism in general he might be able to find a
niche, but he continues to contend that his version of the Abrahamic
myth is true.

I continue to find him curious, but only because I wonder what it
feels like to be the `last priest on Mt. Olympus'. <g>

[panam...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 9, 8:10 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:12:53 +1100, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Sean McHugh wrote:
>
> > >> %%
>
> > >> Roger Pearse wrote:
>
> > ><snip>
>
> > >Apologies for this long post appearing twice (after a long delay). All
> > >indications (including various messages) were that neither attempt had
> > >been successful.
>
> > No problem.
>
> > It was a 100% accurate response.
>
> Thank you for reading it.
>
> > He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.
>
> Here is where one poster summed him up well:
>

> http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...

>
> ~ One has to admire the Roger Pearse method of argument:
> ~
> ~ 1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.
> ~ 2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the
> ~ burden of proof to your opponents.
> ~ 3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable
> ~ to respond.
> ~ 4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave
> ~ with an arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a
> ~ punch in the nose in real life."
>
> I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sean McHugh

Raven1 is actually a long-time "regular" in alt.atheism. Can you tell
we used to see Roger on a regular basis?

-PF, Atl.
etc.

[Sean McHugh]

panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 8:10 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> > "Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:12:53 +1100, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >Sean McHugh wrote:
> >
> > > >> %%
> >
> > > >> Roger Pearse wrote:
> >
> > > ><snip>
> >
> > > >Apologies for this long post appearing twice (after a long delay). All
> > > >indications (including various messages) were that neither attempt had
> > > >been successful.
> >
> > > No problem.
> >
> > > It was a 100% accurate response.
> >
> > Thank you for reading it.
> >
> > > He's been pulling the same shit since he first appeared here in 2000.
> >
> > Here is where one poster summed him up well:
> >
> > http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33...

Better fix that link. I don't know what happened to it:

http://groups.google.co.id/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/63c411f8a33bd57f

> > ~ One has to admire the Roger Pearse method of argument:
> > ~
> > ~ 1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.
> > ~ 2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the
> > ~ burden of proof to your opponents.
> > ~ 3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable
> > ~ to respond.
> > ~ 4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave
> > ~ with an arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a
> > ~ punch in the nose in real life."
> >
> > I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Sean McHugh
>
> Raven1 is actually a long-time "regular" in alt.atheism. Can you tell
> we used to see Roger on a regular basis?

Yes. Perhaps that's why he's come to aus.christian.religion; AA had
lots of atheists. I can understand that.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[Sean McHugh]

Roger Pearse wrote to Peter:

<snip>

>
> Thus (for example) we get little Sean comparing a group of children
> singing "All things bright and beautiful" to a Chinese prison where
> men's minds are deliberately broken under bestial torture over days
> and nights, so that they become communists.

Is that some sort of cipher?

> He's probably honestly oblivious to the difference,

I'm 'oblivious' to where it came from.

> and oblivious of the irony of appealing to an atheist regime.
> Some atheists become so demented that they actually report
> Sunday Schools and the like to the police in their
> madness, as if a crime was really in progress.

So who told you, Dolf or Jesus?

> So too with this. The same applies to any hate-creed.

It certainly applies to any pearse-creed.

> This is a solemn warning to us all; the people that we spend our time
> with online insensibly condition our sense of right and wrong, our
> sense of what is normal and not. The moral is to spend most of our
> time doing positive things, concentrating on our enthusiasms, not our
> hatreds.
>
> None of the atheists will be able to engage with these comments,
> except by hurling insults or nastiness.

Let's see, none of the atheists will be able to engage your nastiness
and insults without hurling insults and nastiness. Those evil
bastards!! Roger, you get those atheists, you get them good.

> If they were, they wouldn't be in Bedlam.

Isn't that some place in Ipswich?

<snip>

Sean McHugh

[dolf]

(ru) dolf: "I'd like to get your opinion on the whitewashing as claimed
piety, this historical perspective as the 'suspected of murder or any
injury against a particular one person' Jesus of Nazareth, of pogroms as
holocaust against their own people and of destruction against the Jewish
Temple as depicted in Titus' Arch of #81 CE despite the pacifist claim
to be 'severely prohibited from engaging in any violent action.'

That by such paralytic historical dependency on Chaldean religious
mysticism, are you really a "Jew who follows the Torah" or a "pious
hymenealist cultist Gregorian calendar Gentile" who are in need of
repentance, with respect to a continuing injury against the sovereign
autonomic right as the peace of mind which comes with regulative
free-will--Which was once set in stone in the Most Holy place of that
Temple?"

The goal of Judaism and Jewish life is the achievement of personal and
national peace and harmony. Yet the Torah does not advocate radical
pacifism. The Torah provides for the concept of milchemet mitzvah [cf:
MILCHAMAH #143 from original Hebrew #20 #40 #30 #8 #30 #5 (H4421)
meaning generally war; from the primitive root (H3898) #30 #8 #40 = #78
- Recognizing Fidelity/ Trust in Faith; I-Ching: H59 - Dispersal; Tetra:
#47 - Pattern] – a war that is an absolute necessity such as the war
against Amalek {a people that licks up as the epitome of evil incarnate
in Torah terms} or a war of self-defense and self-preservation. The
Torah also provides for wars that are titled milchemet reshut – wars
that are permissible even if on the surface the war is not currently
deemed necessary in the eyes of many. [Courtesy and (c) 2009, Rabbi
Berel Wein, Humane War, Project Genesis]

Thom Madura (tomm...@optonline.net): "No - you have provided not a
single iota of proof of YOUR god and YOUR religion. Your statements do
not suggest a difference between YOUR gods and any of the other 28
millions of them so far named - or your religion from any of the
hundreds of thousands so far as well. YOU may BELIEVE it all - but it is
all UNPROVEN nonsense."

clanker (fl...@dingdong.net): "Good stuff Thommadura, - the Dolf is very
'ill' mentally but believes he is the only 'well' person in the world.

Belief *is* proof for Dolf.

Any god worthy of the term would fight his own battles and not have to
rely on manic humans like Dolf to act on their/its behalf.

Gods don't exist except in the minds of the deluded."

ru (dolf): "In what way was my substantiation of a semiotic and
cosmological basis to semitic religious belief deficient?"

Citizen Jimserac (Jims...@gmail.com): "The Dolf represents an objective
instantiaion of the semiotic absolute, and as such, is not swayed,
diverted, insulted, distracted, misrepresented. He has undermined and
rendered your diversionary comments ineffectual."

ru (dolf): "Peter Bowditch reactions as irrationality appear to have a
psychosomatic basis--the Palestinian conflict is ostensibly equivalently
constituted! My great friendship with the people of Israel is evidenced
by my using this natural and common law paradigm and mathematical
hermeneutic approach as a weapon of war (mass destruction of the psyche
motivated by psychosomatic conditions)."

- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/germination.html

[Sean McHugh]

That says it very well.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh

[dolf]

-- Crusaders spreading gay fear...

"Gay people aren't very popular among those demanding more freedom of
religion in a federal inquiry currently underway.

The Human Rights Commission's freedom of religion and belief inquiry
extended the timeframe for new submissions until the end of this month,
but so far conservative Christians have made more contributions than
every other religion or perspective combined." [The Sydney Star Observer
12 February 2009, p 7]

That I will not, with respects to Intellectual Property held by me as
substantiation of religious belief by a semiotic cosmological absolute,
prostitute this knowledge by making a submission to this enquiry.

This is because of the dishonesty as indulgence which accompanied the
last Senate Committee review of proposed amendments to marriage
legislation in August 2004 to which I did make a submission--this
process was subverted by John Howard due to delusional ideological
perspectives held by him.

That I have found this same dishonest and deficient conduct to be the
character of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales--I'm still
waiting for their resolution of my complaint (did they send it to some
perverse suburban address to make a point about their superiority in
this country?) in relation to abuses as Internet termination perpetuated
before the last Federal Election by candidates with Christian views--at
a time when John Howard erroneously and falsely claimed there was
freedom of speech.

This claim as the great love for this country, is destructive of life,
vitality and a disregard for justice as human rights--And I would prefer
to take my matters of religious, racial and sexual vilification as
fascism being brought against the Government, its representatives, the
Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (Victoria) & the
Anti-Discrimination Board (New South Wales) to an International Court of
Law.

Australia is a Dutch possession colonised by the British according to
principle and the peoples are unprincipled! That I use to be from
Victoria, till I left because of their inhospitality and denial as
perversity of justice for 12 years.

And I have every intention of establishing fact in a court of law,
rather than condescending to the maniacal instruments of cruelty
deployed by the Human Rights Commission.

(ru) dolf: "I believe I have provided you sufficient proof of the
natural and common law basis to my religious belief."

Thom Madura (tomm...@optonline.net): "No - you have provided not a
single iota of proof of YOUR god and YOUR religion. Your statements do
not suggest a difference between YOUR gods and any of the other 28
millions of them so far named - or your religion from any of the
hundreds of thousands so far as well. YOU may BELIEVE it all - but it is
all UNPROVEN nonsense."

clanker (fl...@dingdong.net): "Good stuff Thommadura, - the Dolf is very
'ill' mentally but believes he is the only 'well' person in the world.

Belief *is* proof for Dolf.

Any god worthy of the term would fight his own battles and not have to
rely on manic humans like Dolf to act on their/its behalf.

Gods don't exist except in the minds of the deluded."

ru (dolf): "In what way was my substantiation of a semiotic and
cosmological basis to semitic religious belief deficient?"

Citizen Jimserac (Jims...@gmail.com): "The Dolf represents an objective

instantiation of the semiotic absolute, and as such, is not swayed,

diverted, insulted, distracted, misrepresented. He has undermined and
rendered your diversionary comments ineffectual."

ru (dolf): "Peter Bowditch reactions as irrationality appear to have a
psychosomatic basis--the Palestinian conflict is ostensibly equivalently
constituted! My great friendship with the people of Israel is evidenced
by my using this natural and common law paradigm and mathematical
hermeneutic approach as a weapon of war (mass destruction of the psyche
motivated by psychosomatic conditions)."

Barry OGrady (god_fre...@yahoo.com): "May I call you Dolt? You are
talking about all the brothels there. If your will was not compromised
by your full blown AIDS you could just ignore them."

ru (dolf): "That this term authored by me is an example of semiotic
concerns: OZ2'y

It is of course a semantic statement for: Australia Day 26 January and
is also millennium futuristic in its obvious play against the folly of
Y2K. It demonstrates a viral capacity for dissemination as the ability
to contribute respectfully to dialog and cease all attempts against
moving the day--displaying a capacity for consensus by the populace.

The Torah's cosmological 'OTH cycle is also concerned with signs: 6D =
2184 days as the 'OTH cycle of the Everlasting Covenant; 6D = 2184 (6 x
364) days; 6D x 7 (W); 6D x 49 (J) = 294 x 364 or 293 x 365.2425 days of
the Topical Year. And may be the instigation as origin of the 22
elements of the Hebrew language. According to Wikipedia 2009 edition,
"semioticians classify signs or sign systems in relation to the way they
are transmitted (see modality). This process of carrying meaning depends
on the use of codes that may be the individual sounds or letters that
humans use to form words:

"Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths
ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one
that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any
work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." [Exodus
31:13-14 (KJV)]"
Sean McHugh (se...@exemail.com.au): "One has to admire the Roger['s]
method of argument:

1) Make an assertion. Offer nothing to back it up.

2) Snip every rebuttal to your assertion, while shifting the burden of
proof to your opponents.
3) Blatantly lie, insisting that your opponents have been unable to respond.
4) Claim victory; belittle your opponents, and generally behave with an
arrogance and smugness that would likely earn you a punch in the nose in

real life.
I suggest "likely" should be changed to 'certainly'.

(ru) dolf: "Just a standard categorical imperative--nice ploy, just ask

that rabid fascist dog and banshee whore Peter Bowditch from Australian
Skeptics. He takes exception to:

#1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = #10

Sean is hardly honest in his discussion--he needs someone to restrain
him and remind him what moderation is.

And the message is clear: If you want to get yourself under control, go
to the absolute opposite extreme. Don't go anywhere near a bottle; don't
consume anything even remotely reminiscent of wine. Take drastic action:
take an oath. You can't be "normal" about this; you cannot drink in
moderation. You are fighting a war.

As is often the case, the Torah deals with specifics, but the message
for us is far from specific. If we cannot control ourselves in certain
ways, if we have a weakness, a craving or addiction, we must go to the
opposite extreme. Maimonides [Mishne Torah Hil' De'os 2:2] writes that
one who cannot control his anger must make himself into a doormat. He
must never argue, raise his voice, or talk back -- even when perfectly
justified. If he allows himself to get started, there's no telling what
kind of damage he will do to himself and to others, how quickly
relationships which took years to nurture will be destroyed. If,
however, he adopts the opposite practice, it will slowly become second
nature to him (for how we act eventually becomes who we are), and
ultimately he will attain that golden middle. [Courtesy and Copyright
2009, Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld, When Religion Means War, Chapter 3, Mishna
17(d), Project Genesis]

And the general enjoyment of abuse on religious discussion forums is no

different to some individual's predilection to child pornography--I find
both revolting.

Sean McHugh (se...@exemail.com.au): "You might go to Sunday school for
extracurricular mind manipulation."

Roger Pearce (roger....@googlemail.com): "Whatever turns you on.
Normally you go there to pull chicks."

blofelds_cat (blofelds_cat@_SPECTRE.com): "When I was made to go to
Sunday School, I used to stick pins into girls to make them squeal
during the proceedings. :)"

Roger Pearce (roger....@googlemail.com): "Sadly I never had the
chance to do these heartwarming childish things, as I wasn't sent to
Sunday school. But I'd probably have hated it anyway."

Jani (ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk): "Bit of a kick-the-cat principle, then?
You're not allowed to argue against those above you in the pecking
order, so you poke those who are weaker."

Roger Pearce (roger....@googlemail.com): "What a nasty comment and
supposition on something ordinary and honest."

No One (no.o...@nowhere.else): "You like boys better than girls,
dontcha dolt?"

Jani (ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk): "You mean, so the people *you* don't like
will burn, and for longer."

ru (dolf): "Fuck off you feral whore! Still a virgin at 48 yo! Love me
or hate me, can't you see what I see? [Britney Spears]"

Jani (ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk): "Little boys who want to protest against
their parents making them go to Sunday school stick pins into little
girls. And that's 'ordinary and honest' in your world, is it?"

Sean McHugh (se...@exemail.com.au): "Rather surprising humour! I had to
re-check the header."

(ru) (dolf): "You have as much integrity as Radio Nova pretending that
they aren't engaged in cruelty and decadent indulgence and insolence
against a person's autonomic right and privacy, by undertaking
propagandist pretension as illusion of being caring in the burns unit of
the Alfred Hospital on 2009.2.13--That hospital is guilty of the most
egregious human rights abuse related to outstanding matters of
1999.8.21, that they ought to start apologising for!"

[dolf]

-- Crusaders spreading gay fear...

I have since removed my name from the electoral role and any further
participation within the democratic process.

[dolf]

Dear Real Estate Agent,

13 February 2009 [SUPER: #338 / #31 - Military Strategies as Guides/
Quelling War; I-Ching: H32 - Endurance; Tetra: #51 - Constancy / EGO:
#453 / #59 - A Sensible Guide/ Hold Fast To Reason; I-Ching: H42 -
Increase; Tetra: #13 - Increase]

There was a fire inspection conducted of our residential premises
situated at XXX co-ordinated by your office on 30 January 2009 [SUPER:
#294 / #10 - Impossible Advice/ What can Be Done?; I-Ching: H30 -
Clinging to Brightness; Tetra: #41 - Response / EGO: #298 / #2 -
Contrast of Terms/ Self-Culture; I-Ching: H11 - Peace; Tetra: #16 -
Contact].

My neighbour situated in XXX has not returned this fire extinguisher to
its proper place, so that it is readily accessible in the circumstance
of exigency—either this is because it needs to be replaced (such as is
the case of his rear window), or it is due to some psychological
disturbance.

Furthermore, the individual has conveyed to me that my attempts to
reduce the effects of flood damage and fire risk due to a leaking roof
by placing catchment bowls in proximity to the stairs, places his life
and limbs at risk.

Should you fail to take action, to place this individual in a proper
state of mind as respect for his living environment, I will convey the
matter to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and organise for this individual
to undergo an involuntary psychiatric assessment, to establish that he
possesses no risk of harm to his immediate environment.

Yours truly,

[thomas p.]

"Sean McHugh" <se...@exemail.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:49949195...@exemail.com.au...

And Pearse will ignore it or talk about "True Christians".

[Roger Pearse]

On Feb 12, 1:48 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> Roger Pearsewrote to Peter:
>
> <snip>

>
> > This is a solemn warning to us all; the people that we spend our time
> > with online insensibly condition our sense of right and wrong, our
> > sense of what is normal and not.  The moral is to spend most of our
> > time doing positive things, concentrating on our enthusiasms, not our
> > hatreds.
>
> > None of the atheists will be able to engage with these comments,
> > except by hurling insults or nastiness.  
>
> Let's see, none of the atheists will be able to engage your nastiness
> and insults without hurling insults and nastiness. Those evil
> bastards!! Roger, you get those atheists, you get them good.
>
> > If they were, they wouldn't be in Bedlam.
>
> Isn't that some place in Ipswich?

I need to say something here, without insult, although it would
probably come better from someone else. But Sean... you need to get a
more healthy way of life. You may not realise this, but you're on a
downward slope. This can happen to anyone, as I remarked above.

You've been online for nearly as long as I have, and you've spent a
lot of that time dilating on how foolish the Christians are. It
matters not whether you were right. This obsession with the stupidity
of your fellow man has bent your mind. You may not be able to see
this, but remember that I only encounter you occasionally.

You see, I remember a day when you posted in a "normal" way. The
posts that you've made to me lately -- I have to say this -- have all
seemed to me suggestive of someone losing it. Yet this is nuts; you
will never meet me, and, rationally, you should care what I think as
little as I care what you think. What am I to you? Or you to me?
We're all just empty voices in a sense, gibbering in the ether.
(Although it is important to remember that real human beings sit
behind these posts, and often sad and lonely and ill ones, for whom
the web is a blessing; let's not injure them wilfully).

Unless we avoid doing this sort of thing, get offline, spend time with
things that are positive and for which we feel enthusiasm, not rage,
we will certainly become insane. Please take this as intended out of
goodwill. I am aware that it could be seen as a kind of ploy, but
remember that I don't actually care enough about your activities to do
that. You may suppose that I am mistaken. But there is no comparison
with who you were, and who you are. For your own sake, consider how
you live. This from someone always at risk of the same.

[Sean McHugh]

35

The trouble with the "True Christian" defence is that it becomes
arbitrary as to where the cutoff is. Taken to the limit, it could make
Christianity just a concept with no actual Christians.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh