You Say:

“I read enough. Here’s another gem:

“The Atheist does not simply disbelieve in some form of divinity in the world, he or she seeks the total annihilation of religion and the religious.”

Another one of your idiotic statements about non-believers.”

A) Non-believers and Atheists are two different groups. I’m a “non-believer” in terms of Christianity, but not an Atheist. Atheism posits a very specific set of beliefs about the universe (some call it rational materialism) where as non-believers is a vague term that literally includes everyone in the world from some perspective. This is a cheap rhetorical device you use to make it look like I’m irrationally attacking all people who aren’t religious, rather than dedicated Atheists.

B) You have claimed again these statements are idiotic but provide no reason why except that you happen to disagree. I happen to think Tabasco is a fairly mild sauce and others disagree, are we being “idiotic?” How about you name three Atheists that haven’t at some point been involved in attempting to drive Constitutionally protected displays of faith from public life, or don’t spend their time ridiculing and demonizing religious people?

“People who believe in subjective morality believe in subjective morality. Not all atheists fit that mold. Some, like the objectivists, believe in objective morality. Others, like me think the entire subjective vs. objective morality argument is a false dichotomy.”

Here you’re confusing the terms objectivism with objective morality. Objectivism philosophically posits that the most moral society allows people to follow their self-interest, which we may both agree on, but Objectivism doesn’t support the idea of a universal right and wrong beyond Rand’s attempt to create a moral system in which my own ambition and self-interest is the highest authority. In essence this is a subjective morality because it changes from individual to individual.

There are a group of pedophiles I have blogged about who have a sort of online support group. They are heavily involved in trying to change sex offender registry laws (most are on the registry) and have infiltrated conservative and progressive websites to spread their message. By Objectivist standards they are in fact acting morally, by my standards they are not. That’s because I think morality and political philosophy are linked but different. I’m a Capitalist, but I give to charity and worked in non-profits for example.

When I use Objective an Subjective, I’m using those terms to reference the idea of there either being a fixed morality and belief that some things (like pedophilia) are intrinsically evil versus the idea that something like pedophilia being socially stigmatizing but no worse than anything else.

“Since counterexamples exist against both positions they are both false. Morality is neither objective nor subjective in the sense meant by most holders of those positions.”

That’s undergrad style circular argumentation. So if the pedophiles I mention above think they’re being moral that invalidates my belief in an objectively true morality?

“There are many flavors of subjective morality and not all would agree with that. Few would agree that legality or non-legality is how one tells if something is moral.”

That’s exactly my point. I once read an essay (back in the 90s I think) which claimed that a solution to child molestation was to take brain dead children and warehouse them in pedophile bordellos. The state would keep them alive on machines and pedophiles could molest them thus “saving” other children. That is a monstrous evil plan that this person thought was morally right. This is an extreme example but when nothing is really wrong (we are according to you rightly guided only by self-interest) then everything is right. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the Objectivist argument against the above perfidy.

“For someone who claims to have a “academic background in Comparative Religion” you certainly have a poor grasp of ethical philosophy.”

And you have a poor grasp of academia. Comparative Religion is in no way related to philosophy, it is mainly an Anthropological/ethnographic science.

“That prior article is a long childish rant about things you are ignorant of and apparently don’t have the brain power to understand.”

Then be the adult and explain why I’m wrong. What you’re doing is projecting. You call me names then say I’m childish, you misunderstand what I write then claim I’m ignorant. I say back up your claims.

“I know more atheists than you do and NONE of them are “bad” people in any sense that couldn’t be applied to my Christian friends.”

A) You know more Atheists than me? How do you come up with such a conclusion? Through empirical analysis I’m sure.

B) And your Christian friends are the bad people? Why be friends with them? You aren’t a very good one.

“Atheists believe in a subjective morality. For example they believe that the reason it’s wrong for a 40-year-old to be sexually active with a child is because it’s illegal and society has ruled that it shouldn’t happen.”
People who believe in subjective morality believe in subjective morality. Not all atheists fit that mold. Some, like the objectivists, believe in objective morality. Others, like me think the entire subjective vs. objective morality argument is a false dichotomy.

Since counterexamples exist against both positions they are both false. Morality is neither objective nor subjective in the sense meant by most holders of those positions.

There are many flavors of subjective morality and not all would agree with that. Few would agree that legality or non-legality is how one tells if something is moral.

For someone who claims to have a “academic background in Comparative Religion” you certainly have a poor grasp of ethical philosophy.

That prior article is a long childish rant about things you are ignorant of and apparently don’t have the brain power to understand.

Another of you bigoted comments: “I know many atheists and most happen to be bad people.”

I know more atheists than you do and NONE of them are “bad” people in any sense that couldn’t be applied to my Christian friends.

“The Atheist does not simply disbelieve in some form of divinity in the world, he or she seeks the total annihilation of religion and the religious.”

Another one of your idiotic statements about non-believers.

You didn’t read the piece, have no idea what “libel” “bigot” or “gross generalization” means and you no doubt have done exactly what you accuse me of doing, judging entire groups. That’s my point, and your childish tirade helps prove it.

And you meant disbelief in religion.

In other words you are an ignorant bigot. An idiot as far as I can tell. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you cannot judge a group by an individual, especially when that individual is behaving badly.

Furthermore, atheism is a lack of belief. You might as well be making gross over-generalizations about people who don’t believe in leprechauns.

This is some idiotic reasoning you’ve got going on here.

My tone reflects that fact that you are libeling me for my disbelieve in religion. Screw you, you bigot.

But I’m sure it sounded high brow to feed that unwarranted sense of superiority you have.

Not being a Christian or a Confusion I couldn’t care less about offending either with a wrong attribution.