My Conversation with Linda on 9-23-12

The following conversation happened at Support Atheism in the comments section of my article Keeping Religious Friends. Two highlights were Linda’s insistence on Christian persecution and her appeal to her dislike of the fact of death as her reason for believing. Her text is in bold. Mine is in Italics. Comments are [in brackets].

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your comments. Following are my responses.

“I’m a Christian, don’t shoot me,”

I’m pretty much a pacifist, so wouldn’t dream of it.

“but this article is about the same struggles we have. We have been hated by people if we talk too much about God in our lives, but if we don’t we then deny a big part of us that we absolutely love.”

Except there’s a difference. There is far greater social acceptance in this country to religion in general and Christianity in specific. I’m sure you’ve been in awkward social situations, but politicians live and die by your vote. Not so with mine.

And this whole “God in our lives” thing is your choice. You don’t have to live that way. You choose to. Thus, as with any choice, the consequences of your choice are yours to bear.

For those who wonder why #atheists are so in-your-face…

I happened upon this on the A-News Discussion page on Facebook and, while it only applies to Muslim atheism and apostasy, it’s indicative of the historic treatment of all atheists. And realistically, our collective historic treatment only shifted from one of serious death threats and actual executions at the hands of Christians to not-so serious death threats and no executions within the last 150 years or so.

My conversation with #RobynHill on 3/9/12

Before you ask, no, Robyn and I are not related. Robyn happened onto a post about Mike Lee.

She made the following comment:

“ha ha, Mike Lee makes athesists look ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who knows a thing about logic. Move away from Ad Hominem arguing Lee.”

I responded with this:

“Hey Robyn,

“Thanks for dropping by. Funny you say that as I’d say the exact same thing about any religious person and logic. What, specifically, makes you say that? I don’t actually remember seeing Mike argue anything. Are you saying he’s used ad hominems? if so, when?”

Then I went to her Facebook page, by the link to which she’d provided, and started a conversation. Here is that conversation. My text in italics. Hers in bold. And a few links, pics, and vids to keep your attention ’cause FUCK is this epic!

(Unrelated side note: from now on, the “on X” dates of those conversations won’t necessarily reflect the literal date on which they occurred or ended, but rather more likely the date on which I get around to posting them. Carry on.)

Anton Hill
Hi Robyn,

Thanks for your comment. I just left my reply on AtheistAsshole.com.

Best,

Anton.

Robyn Hill
Sorry, but Mike Lee just uses bad tactics to argue his cause. He needs to take a few logic and debate classes.

My conversation with stevenuggen on 12/11/11

This latest conversation took me for-fucking-ever to get to and to finish. Unfortunately, you’ll find many redundancies and repetitions. Because it’s taken so long and I’m frankly so tired of it, I’ve provided no commentary at the end. My text is in italics. Steve’s is in bold.

Hi Steve,

I understand you may choose not to respond. I’ve answered all of your questions, including the one on whether I’d like to interview acquaintances of yours who also witnessed God.

>something cannot come from nothing Anton. if you are a scientist you understand basic causation.

I’m a linguist, which is a kind of scientist. And yes, I understand causation, but just because we don’t know the cause of something 1. doesn’t mean there wasn’t one and 2 doesn’t mean it was what we assume it to be. My understanding of current cosmology is that time began with the universe, thus, there was no “before” the universe. Thus, no “cause” in the traditional sense.

>where did the soup of organic chemicals come from?

As far as I’ve heard, some from the atmosphere, some from the ground, some maybe even from space. I’m not entirely sure. Sagan might say that it all came from star material. My understanding of current cosmology is that it all ultimately came from a highly dense singularity. But don’t quote me on that.

>you always face the problem of causation. nothing we have observed empirically works that way. the only logical explanation is an uncaused cause.

That may seem attractive, sure, but it still requires explanation. Where did the “uncaused” cause come from, how did it get there, why did it do what it did, etc.? If current cosmology is correct and time began with the universe, there is no need for an “uncaused” cause. If the universe is infinite, there is still no need for an “uncaused” cause. Why is it theists find the notion of an infinite god so acceptable, but the notion of an infinite universe so unacceptable? They’re the same notion, merely with different names.

>an intelligent designer. the deeper science goes in understanding the radical complexity and intricisy of the Universe the more they see intelligent design as the only viable explanation.

Can you name a single legitimate, peer-reviewed, non-creationist-funded scientist who has proved, not asserted, but proved that there was, in fact, an intelligent designer? Are you saying that the appearance of patterns and complexity means that such observances were designed? The issue I see is even if we were to accept the ID idea, it still needs to be proved.

Moreover, everything I’ve heard from legitimate, peer-reviewed scientists such as Hawking is that the laws that we’ve already observed, such as gravity, explain the complexity we see.

My video “an|OPEN CHALLENGE” is live on #SupportAtheism and #AtheistConnect!

The SA main page is here. The video is here. The AC main page is here. The video is here. It’s also below and under My Media.